Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Pre-school Playgroups

Mr. Haselhurst: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what future role he sees for the pre-school playgroup movement.

The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): Good playgroups with a sound educational base have a very important part to play in pre-school provision. More than 750,000 children now attend about 20,000 playgroups throughout the country. Pre-school playgroups have a vital role in the educational future of the country, so I can announce that, subject to parliamentary approval, the grant to the Pre-school Playgroups Association for 1994–95 will increase to about £1.2 million for its training activities, an increase of 35 per cent. over the previous year.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be warmly welcomed by people who run playgroups and by all the parents who participate in, and are grateful for, such activity? Will he offer further reassurance that there is no threat to the validity of the pre-school playgroup experience in the light of the fact that there is to be a spread of nursery education?

Mr. Patten: There is none whatever. I know that there are some excellent playgroups in the Saffron Walden area. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the future of the pre-school playgroup movement is safe in our hands. I believe that pre-school playgroups are an integral part of the English way of life and a very important part of English village life. They will also be a very important part of educational provision for children aged three and four under the terms of the announcement that we shall make, in the not-too-distant future, about our plans.

Mr. Spearing: The House would certainly agree that there is a need for pre-school playgroups and I agree with the Secretary of State that they perform a most useful function. Does he agree, however, that they are complementary to nursery education, its known accom-modation, staffing and practice standards and the personal qualifications of its staff? Does he therefore agree that there should be further debate, if that is possible, of a Bill relating to the assessment of need for nursery education, so that the two wings can be balanced to the benefit of all concerned?

Mr. Patten: That is the first time in 15 years that the hon. Gentleman has said publicly that he agrees with me. It is a pretty unusual afternoon. The hon. Gentleman has made me rather worried, although I recognise his expertise as an ex-teacher.
Pre-school playgroups, whether run by voluntary organisations or by the private sector, have a very important part to play. They are run on the sites of a good number of local education authority primary schools. They are complementary, I think, to the work that is done by state-provided nursery schools and nursery classes and also to the work done by the private sector in pre-school provision, as well as the Montessori groups. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that we aim for mixed provision for three and four-year olds in the future.

Mr. Whittingdale: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's support for pre-school playgroups, but does he agree that one of the best ways to increase parental choice would be to introduce a voucher system, which would allow parents to take advantage of the excellent private and voluntary provision, as well as public provision, of pre-school education?

Mr. Patten: I am reviewing all possible ways of developing pre-school provision along the lines that I have just described to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). At present, nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I feel that it would not be right for any of us to speak about education today without first expressing our sympathy to the parents of Nikki Conroy and the people at the school in Middlesbrough who were affected by the tragedy yesterday.
When will the Secretary of State take control of policy making on early years education? One day the Prime Minister tells us that he is mad keen on nursery education and the next the Minister of State says that she regards it as inappropriate. When will the Secretary of State stop playing piggy-in-the-middle—or is he so concerned to protect his own bacon that he does not dare to disagree with either of them? Valuable though the contribution of playgroups may be, it is no substitute for quality nursery education. When will the Secretary of State show some commitment and give a lead on nursery education?

Mr. Patten: There were a lot of questions there. First, may I associate myself entirely with what the hon. Lady said about the tragedy in the constituency of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). Those in my office were in touch with the hon. Gentleman yesterday and I have written to the chairman of the school governors to express the Department's sympathy. The whole House shares the hon. Lady's feelings and I am pleased that she mentioned the matter.
On nursery provision, it is important that we look in future not at fixed models of the past but at innovative and fresh ways of providing a better standard of pre-school provision for three and four-year-olds. As I said earlier, nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out. But I am sorry for the hon. Lady, who has recently been criticised by leading Labour figures such as Mr. Neil Fletcher, the last Labour leader of the Inner London education authority, and Professor Michael Barber, the recent deputy general


secretary of the National Union of Teachers. Both have accused her of being backward-looking; I would only add, neanderthal.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. If all the questions take that long, we shall not even reach Question 6. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) will set the pace for us.

Funding

Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to encourage the injection of private sector finance into state-funded education.

Mr. Patten: I welcome the existing investment in education by the private sector, and have asked the funding councils and the Funding Agency for Schools to make further expansion a high priority. I shall publish in the summer an information pack designed to encourage wider investment, and am reviewing the possibility of further and perhaps quite radical action.

Mrs. Lait: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Hastings college on its success in attracting private finance? Will he undertake to draw those initiatives to the attention of East Sussex education authority, which is known to campaign actively against grant-maintained schools, to ensure that that authority realises that private sector financing will not displace public funding?

Mr. Patten: On the first point, my hon. Friend is right; Hastings college has a splendid record of attracting private sector investment, on the back of funds coming in from foreign students, to build new buildings in Hastings. On the second point, I regard as disgraceful Liberal Democrat and Labour-controlled East Sussex county council's recent behaviour in attacking grant-maintained schools.

Mr. Grocott: Before the Secretary of State gets too excited about private funding of public education, will he take the opportunity to acknowledge the dismal failure of the funding policy for city technology colleges, 80 per cent. of which are paid for by taxpayers? Given his unwillingness to answer any questions whatever about the operation of those colleges, will he acknowledge that they represent the only area of public life where taxpayers foot 80 per cent. of the bill in return for 0 per cent. of the power?

Mr. Patten: Our 15 technology colleges are 15 beacons of educational excellence in our inner cities. They are popular with parents, and students are queuing up around the walls to get in. The existing CTCs are being followed by a second wave of technical colleges in which we have had more than 200 expressions of interest. Needless to say, the Labour party has already pledged to abolish them, should it ever get the chance.

Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirm that we want as much variety as possible in the funding and type of education and that the Opposition oppose the existence of CTCs, grammar schools, grant-maintained schools, the assisted places scheme and Church schools?

Mr. Patten: I would be wrong, politically and factually, if I did not take this opportunity to say that my hon. Friend is right. The Labour party's typical backward-looking way has already been picked up by Professor Barber, Mr. Fletcher and other Labour party supporters. If only Opposition Members had listened to Professor Barber, who used to be a special adviser to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the Labour party might have some sort of educational policy; as it is, it has nothing at all.

Teacher Training

Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has had over his plans for the reform of teacher training; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire): We consulted extensively last autumn before introducing the current Education Bill and have discussed our reforms with a number of representative bodies during the past six months.

Mr. O'Hara: How many of the bodies consulted approved of the Government's plans to reform teacher training? Have parents been consulted about the implications for their children of increased and extended exposure to apprentice teachers under the proposed system?

Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman has interpreted the Bill incorrectly. For a start, no school will be brought into training unless it chooses to—no compulsion is involved. Secondly, the Bill will ensure the more effective deployment of resources for initial teacher training, and I should have hoped that a majority of hon. Members would welcome that.

Mr. Pawsey: I hope that my hon. Friend will disregard the ill-considered comments of Labour Members. Is he aware that his statement will be widely welcomed by parents, as the reforms involve schools and allow practical teaching to take place more closely with individual children? Will my hon. Friend also join me in condemning some of the extraordinary practices of teacher training colleges in the past?

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend, with his wide experience, is absolutely right. There will be—there already is—an explosion of interest in school-centred training among teacher trainees, who are interested in this new form of training for those with three or four years of university experience who want more training on the job. It is working very well, and the Bill will cement the new system in place.

Mr. Don Foster: Does the Minister accept that his commitment to high-quality teacher training sits ill with his Department's failure to ensure that highly qualified teachers have the necessary resources at their disposal and high-quality buildings in which they and their pupils can operate? Does he agree that the Department's proposals to tackle the backlog of repairs and maintenance in school buildings are wholly inadequate?

Mr. Squire: In a word, I do not agree. The House looks forward to hearing which part of the 1 p that the Liberal


Democrats trail around the country will pay for this proposal. We shall be keeping a close eye on it—the hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt of that.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Are we really to be treated to another display of overweening arrogance by the Secretary of State, following the mauling that his Bill has received in another place? Does he really intend to reverse Labour's amendment, backed by some of the most right-wing members of his own party, and insist on school-based courses for teachers' education, with no input from higher education—even though the pilot scheme on which the proposals are based will not have been completed until this sorry Bill has completed its passage through the House?

Mr. Squire: The Bill is in excellent shape, and we look forward to its arrival here from another place. I note in passing that the idea of a teacher training agency has been accepted by the other place, where their Lordships rejected the Opposition's alternatives. As the hon. Gentleman would expect me to say at this stage, the Government are carefully considering their position on the question of school-centred teaching in response to the amendment.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the remarkable professional behaviour of the teachers at Middlesbrough yesterday showed the high quality of the teaching profession and the fact that schoolteachers have a substantial contribution to make to the education of new members of their profession?

Mr. Squire: I think that my hon. Friend speaks for the whole House when he congratulates the teachers involved in yesterday's horrific incident. Day in, day out, I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work that teachers do across the country, exhibiting skills which, fortunately, do not usually have to be deployed in such dreadful circumstances.

Mentally Handicapped People

Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will hold urgent discussions with the voluntary organisations representing the mentally handicapped about the local government reorganisation and local education authorities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): Voluntary organisations, like other bodies interested in these matters, will wish to ensure that their views are made known to the Local Government Commission. The commission is required, among other things, to undertake consultations with local interests.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the Minister accept that the Government have a special responsibility? It is they who are recommending reorganisation, and they should protect special schools and meet the needs of the mentally handicapped. What are they doing about that?

Mr. Forth: The Government have recently done a tremendous amount generally for special needs and for the mentally handicapped: there are new responsibilities for the schools themselves; the opportunity for special schools to consider grant-maintained status, which will give them a new independence from local education authorities; a special needs code of practice; and a new tribunal. All these will ensure that special educational needs will have a place in our education system that would have been

unknown a few months ago. They were thoroughly embedded in the Education Act 1993. We can look forward with great confidence to special educational needs making a huge step forward and occupying a special place in education.

Mrs. Browning: Is my hon. Friend aware that county councils' reluctance to place children with both learning difficulties and physical disabilities in schools run by charities in the voluntary sector is threatening the viability of those schools, and means that such children are now faced with more generic provision, rather than receiving the excellent specialist provision that charities provide?

Mr. Forth: If my hon. Friend is right—I hope that she will give me some evidence that I can examine—I can reassure her that the provisions of the Education Act 1993, together with the code of practice for special educational needs, give parents new rights of choice, which I am sure they will exercise frequently in favour of the very schools that she mentions. There is a permanent place in our education system for all special schools—those currently run by local authorities which may become grant maintained in the near future and particularly non-maintained special schools.

Mr. Win Griffiths: May I emphasise the Opposition's welcome for the potential in the code of practice for helping to deal with the problems of children with special educational needs, and for the wide range of consultation papers that the Department for Education has issued on all the related problems? However, I remind the Minister that—as his boss will know very well—the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and that the practicality in local authorities and schools is that, despite the Government's good intentions, their policies are seriously failing children. Will the hon. Gentleman follow the good samaritan's example and provide proper funding for those in need?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind remarks. I wonder whether his last sentence represents a new spending commitment on behalf of his party. If so, I wonder whether he has checked it out with the shadow Chancellor; he may want to take it up with his hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman is rushing to judgment prematurely. We are at the earliest stages of the new regime for special educational needs. The opportunity of grant-maintained status for special schools only starts next month and the code of practice and the tribunal come into effect in September. We must all give schools and local education authorities the opportunity to demonstrate how they can use what will be made available to them to provide for special needs, before rushing to judgment as the hon. Gentleman has done today.

St. Alfege with St. Peter's School

Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received about the conditions at St. Alfege with St. Peter's school in Greenwich.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has received letters on this matter from the hon. Gentleman himself, the school's chairman of governors and the appeal fund manager.

Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister recognise the extreme anger felt by parents, governors and teaching staff at that excellent primary school which has to operate in conditions that are overcrowded, substandard and reminiscent of Victorian times? When will the hon. Gentleman recognise that until we provide proper facilities for our young children in primary schools, we cannot hope to achieve the excellence in education which they deserve and which we should be providing for them?

Mr. Forth: I am very much looking forward to meeting the hon. Gentleman when he comes see me with a delegation from the school on 12 April; we can discuss these matters then. In the meantime, it is certainly open to governors of the school to approach the local education authority and discuss whether, for example, a small minor works project could be used to tackle some of the more urgent needs of the school. Funds should be available from the local education authority and I would strongly recommend that course at this stage, pending my looking again at the case for the school, as I shall when I meet the hon. Gentleman.

16-year-olds

Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the United Kingdom participation rate in education for 16-year-olds; and what information he has on comparable rates in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): Some 94 per cent. of 16-year-olds in the United Kingdom took part in some form of education and training in 1990, the latest year for which international comparisons are available covering both full-time and part-time education. That compares well with the position in other OECD countries for which data are available, where participation by 16-year-olds ranges from 100 per cent. in Canada to 71 per cent. in Spain.

Mr. Greenway: That is a very encouraging reply. May I give my hon. Friend the even better news that 74 per cent. of 16-year-olds in North Yorkshire actually stay on at school? Will he continue to build on the progress already made, to make vocational education and training really worth while and relevant for young people so that they achieve the best qualifications that they can and so achieve something of value to employers?

Mr. Boswell: I am delighted to hear the good news from Yorkshire, where the importance of investing in the future is fully understood. That mirrors national provision: there has been a tremendous increase in the number of young people who stay on at school, obtaining satisfactory academic and vocational qualifications or taking training courses in parallel.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Minister's response. Does he accept, however, that too many parents—especially in areas of high unemployment—tend to encourage their children to take dead-end jobs rather than equipping themselves to do better jobs in the future?

Mr. Boswell: I am sure that that was the case in the past, but I think that the culture is changing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and I—indeed, the whole House—will

join in breaking that tradition. The more young people stay on, the more chance there will be of our having a highly skilled labour force and a competitive economy in the future.

Sir Dudley Smith: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments about staying on at school: that is excellent. Will he also tell us how we compare with other OECD countries in terms of rural schools? If the position in this country demonstrates excellence and good endeavour, will he do all that he can to preserve those rural schools, in view of the excellent comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier about the need to preserve the rural scene?

Mr. Boswell: My constituency is quite near my hon. Friend's, and I am aware of his concerns about Warwickshire. I have noted his comments, as, I am sure, have my colleagues; but he will appreciate that, while it is likely that representations will be made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, we cannot comment on individual school reorganisations.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister should start by admitting that some 40 per cent. of 16 and 17-year-olds do not complete the courses that they begin; that participation rates for 18-year-olds are very poor by international standards; and that study after study shows how badly our young people do compared with those abroad. As Ministers would not expect so little—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have not heard a question yet. This is Question Time, and I must hear a direct question to the Minister.

Mr. Lloyd: As Ministers would expect a good deal more for their children, will the Minister now tell us what he intends to do to ensure that all our young people get as much as children in Japan, Germany and France?

Mr. Boswell: We are determined to deal with the deficiencies exposed in "Unfinished Business": we are determined both to increase the staying-on rate and to ensure that those who go on to attend either sixth form or further education colleges sustain their education through to the age of 18. Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman cited some figures relating to 18-year-olds, although the question relates to staying on at 16.
It is important to keep people on course for that time. No doubt the hon. Gentleman has noted the helpful proposals of the Further Education Funding Council, which are designed both to counsel young people and lead them to the appropriate course and—through the appropriate funding mechanism—to ensure that they stay on that course and complete it.

National Vocational Qualifications

Mr. Trend: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what targets have been set for the uptake of general national vocational qualifications among 16 to 19-year-olds over the next three years.

Mr. Boswell: We need high take-up of appropriate and demanding vocational qualifications in the next three years if we are to achieve the challenging national targets for education and training. There are already more than 80,000 students taking GNVQs: that is well on course to meet our aim for one in four 16-year-olds to start GNVQ courses in


1996. Our longer-term aim is for half all 16 and 17-year-olds to take GNVQs at foundation, intermediate or advanced level.

Mr. Trend: Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be parity of esteem between GNVQs and A-levels, particularly for employment purposes? What are the Government doing to achieve that, bearing in mind the fact that many Conservative Members do not want a dilution of the high standards for A-levels?

Mr. Boswell: I entirely agree that there should be parity of esteem. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has conveyed that parity between vocational A-levels and their academic equivalents; we now need to ensure that the highest possible standards and appropriate rigour are observed in the delivery of the vocational qualifications to which I have referred. I recently launched a six-point plan to improve the position, and I am confident that we shall achieve those standards.

Mr. Rooker: How many of the 6 per cent. of 16-year-olds to whom the Minister referred in the previous question, which was not about staying-on rates, who are missing out on education will go on to vocational training? Why was not the answer to the original question 100 per cent?

Mr. Boswell: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has slipped a question. I shall try to respond to him because the two questions are closely related. In conjunction with our colleagues in the Department of Employment, an offer of high-quality vocational education or training is already available to everyone. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently announced proposals for a modern apprenticeship scheme. We have put great emphasis on increasing the staying-on rates either at school for education or at college for training and we have nothing to be ashamed of in the huge expansion in staying-on rates and the acquisition of appropriate qualifications.

Assisted Places Scheme

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to change the assisted places scheme for independent schools; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Patten: None, Madam Speaker. The Government remain fully committed to this popular scheme and the children it supports in the interests of academic excellence.

Mr. Fabricant: I am reassured by that answer. Is not it the case that 30,000 of our most able young people, although not perhaps our most wealthy, benefit from the scheme? Is not it ironic that it is the Labour party which carps against schemes such as this, despite the fact that many on the Opposition Front Bench benefited frorn it, while we are the party of meritocracy and equal opportunity for our young?

Mr. Patten: Many on the Government Benches would have loved to have the educational opportunities in private schools, direct grant schools and independent schools that many Labour Members had. What really matter; is educational excellence—giving children a chance in life. That is what we want to see with the assisted places scheme. I am in favour of the much more competitive education system that we now have. I am fully in favour of

independent schools but I want to see our grant-maintained schools and our maintained schools giving them a good run for their money, which many do, as our performance tables of academic results show.

Mr. Steinberg: Is not the assisted places schemes just an underhand method of subsidising independent schools at the expense of state school children?

Mr. Patten: If that is the best that the hon. Gentleman can do with his question, no wonder he has been got rid of as a representative of the National Union of Teachers.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many parents and their offspring will testify to the success of the assisted places scheme? Is not it true—it is certainly my experience—that schools and teachers also benefit from the scheme? Is not any proposal to do away with it the result of narrow-minded thinking by those who are against choice in education?

Mr. Patten: Those of us who believe in a classless and competitive society can only agree with my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: How does the Secretary of State justify spending almost £100 million of taxpayers' money on the assisted places scheme to subsidise independent schools when, at the same time, Ministers are complaining that there are 1.3 million surplus places in our schools? Is not that another example of the inefficient use of taxpayers' money, which is so desperately needed in other sectors of education?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Lady benefited from a direct grant school education and good luck to her. The Government are interested not in ideology, organisation or in sums of money put in but in academic excellence on behalf of our children and young people and the results that those young people produce. It is as plain as a pikestaff that up and down the land we get exceptionally good value for money from the public money invested in the assisted places scheme because the vast majority of children who benefit from those places obtain spectacular academic results.

Leicestershire County Council

Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many staff were employed in the education department of Leicestershire county council annually over the last five years for which figures are available.

Mr. Robin Squire: This information is not collected centrally.

Mr. Tredinnick: Does my hon. Friend think that because local management of schools has been so successful, particularly in Leicestershire, and because there is an ever-increasing number of grant-maintained schools, there should be serious reductions in education departments, not least in Leicestershire, which is controlled by a Lib-Lab pact? Is not that something which the Department should be encouraging?

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend must be right in what he says. Indeed, had he been inclined to do so, he could have added that further education colleges and sixth-form colleges have now also started to run themselves. All this adds up to a sound reason why all LEAs across the country should be reducing their central staff.

Higher Education (Academic Staff)

Mr. Keen: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has for the introduction of national planning targets for the recruitment and retention of academic staff in higher education.

Mr. Boswell: None, Madam Speaker. The staffing requirements of universities are a matter for individual institutions.

Mr. Keen: Is the Minister aware that a demographic time bomb is ticking away in higher education—for instance, in the subject of chemistry, more than 25 per cent. of the staff are more than 55 years old? Should not the Government plan, as the French are doing, to make sure that in future there are sufficient staff in higher education?

Mr. Boswell: It is nice to know that there are still some people on the Opposition Benches who believe in indicative planning, but the Government do not. We are certainly aware of the age profile of the academic work force and, indeed, some of the problems in individual departments. We shall continue to keep an eye on the situation. But, first, grown-up universities and colleges must determine their own academic staffing profiles and, secondly, we now have a larger range of students than ever before from which to choose potential recruits for the academic world.

Mr. Hawkins: Will my hon. Friend confirm that we have virtually achieved our manifesto commitment of one in three young people in higher education—whereas in 1979 under the Labour party the figure was only one in eight—and that expenditure on higher education is due to rise in real terms over the next two years?

Mr. Boswell: I can readily confirm that. We have hit our target in almost two years when we had allowed ourselves nine years in which to do it. Student numbers are at record levels.

Discretionary Awards

Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will increase the funds available for discretionary awards in the coming academic year.

Mr. Boswell: It is for local education authorities to decide how much to devote to each area of the education service, including discretionary awards, in the light of local needs and circumstances, their own priorities and the resources available to them.

Mr. Howarth: Is not it the Government's responsibility, having presided over the greatest disruption in pupil education in recent years, to make sure that resources are there so that those people who have suffered can have a second chance? While the Minister is at it, why does not he apologise for all the disruption?

Mr. Boswell: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I doubt whether he has in mind the fact that public funding for the maintained schools sector has risen by more than 45 per cent. in real terms since 1979 and that my right hon. Friend and my colleagues have been driving up educational standards.
However, since the hon. Gentleman asks what our responsibility is, I can tell him that it is to provide, as we do, more than £17 billion through the standard spending

assessment, which represents an increase of 2.4 per cent. over the previous year. That is a record of resourcing local education authorities that allows them to assume and, we hope, discharge their proper responsibilities.

Grant-maintained Schools

Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what progress is being made towards the Government's target of increasing the number of grant-maintained schools in Leicestershire.

Mr. Squire: Five schools in Leicestershire have so far achieved grant-maintained status. Three of these are in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Garnier: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to achieve such progress is to invite teachers and parents in Leicestershire to visit the three schools in my constituency—Abington, Bushloe and South Wigston? Will he agree that it is hardly surprising that, outside those schools, there is a queue of parents who come from outside the schools' catchment areas and who want to place their children at those schools, despite the fact that Leicestershire is, as my hon. Friend from Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) has just said, a Liberal-Labour LEA?

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend is right. The story that he tells of Leicestershire is the same one that is repeated across the country for GM self-governing schools. I have some good news for all of my hon. Friends: from next Friday, a further 110 schools will formally become GM schools.

Local Management of Schools

Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the local management of schools.

Mr. Forth: The most valuable assessment of LMS is that by the schools themselves, the overwhelming majority of whom support its principles and practice. Schools do not wish us to bring back the arrangements previously in place.

Mr. Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend aware that the schools in Herefordshire certainly share the opinion that he has given the House? However, I draw his attention to the concern that has been expressed to me by the Bans Court special school in Hereford, which has a very high level of students with severe and multiple learning difficulties. It is concerned that, with nationally agreed pay awards, it may not be able to accommodate those within the LEA assessed grant. Will my hon. Friend be reviewing the way in which local education authorities assess the allocations made to special schools 8o that they can continue their valuable work, and what advice might he give to LEAs?

Mr. Forth: Local education authorities have remarkable freedom and flexibility in devising and implementing their local management of school schemes, and special schools' budget shares are very dependent on the decisions made by local education authorities within a broad framework, which should be sufficiently flexible to allow the needs of all individual schools to be met. In particular, they can take advantage of the many concessions made for small schools—those with fewer than 330 pupils. I hope that the school will be talking to the local education


authority, to ensure that the provision that it receives is adequate to its needs. There is no reason why that should not be the case.

Mr. Bell: Further to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and of the Secretary of State, would not it be appropriate for the House to offer its condolences to the parents of Nikki Conroy who so tragically lost her life yesterday in Middlesbrough in a stabbing attack? The House will share with the entire nation its sense of sadness at the death of so young and so lovely a person, cut down even before her prime in a senseless and dastardly attack. Does the Minister agree that no blame can be attached either to the management of Hall Garth school or its teachers, that the teachers, not least the head, have coped extremely well in the circumstances and that Cleveland county council has responded magnificently in giving counselling to those involved? Would not it be appropriate for the Secretary of State to ask all managements in schools to review their own security as a matter of urgency and for him to report back to the House on the outcome of such a review?

Mr. Forth: I associate myself and all my colleagues with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am sure that our heart-felt sympathy goes to all those involved in the tragedy and I share the hon. Gentleman's admiration for the role played by all those most closely involved, not least the teachers. I have been very impressed by the measured and dignified way in which the chairman of the governors and the head teacher have responded to what happened in their school. I believe that the best service that we can provide for all school children throughout the land who, with their parents, will be upset and appalled at this incident, is to examine carefully what happened and draw whatever lessons can be drawn. However, I believe that, as a result of what happened yesterday, all schools will already be looking at their own arrangements and deciding what they can best do. We will certainly be examining what happened to see what lessons can be learnt and what advice, support and help we can give.

Physical Education

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what importance is attached to physical education in the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Robin Squire: Physical education is a foundation subject in the national curriculum. As such, it is compulsory for all pupils aged five to 16 years in maintained schools.

Mr. Spring: Is my hon. Friend aware that some 71 per cent. of 14-year-olds receive fewer than two hours' physical education a week in school? Does he agree that sport and exercise, as opposed to the watching of videos and television, are desirable for young people and should be encouraged?

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend must be right about the importance of games. As I am sure that he knows, it is compulsory for five to 14-year-olds to have such games. He may be interested to know that Ofsted, the independent inspectorate, recently collected evidence which showed that, on average, PE took between 7 and 12 per cent. of curriculum time.

Truancy

Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many truancy watch schemes he expects to be established under his recent initiative to crack down on truancy.

Mr. Forth: A total of 101 schemes were suggested by local education authorities for inclusion in the 1994–95 truancy and disaffected pupils grants for educational support and training programme. Half the 86 approved schemes include a "truancy watch" element along the lines of a pilot scheme currently operating in Staffordshire. My right hon. Friend has been much encouraged by the many expressions of support for those schemes from senior police officers and representatives of the business community.

Mr. Booth: Is the Minister aware of the widespread support for the Government's truancy initiative, especially in areas such as Finchley, where there is great support for education generally? Will he also tell us what steps are being taken to encourage, enhance and train parents to support those truancy efforts?

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend and I lay an enormous stress on dealing with the problem of truancy. We believe that young people should be in school, being educated, and should not be at risk outside school. We believe that that is of the greatest importance. I have been encouraged by the positive response from schools and from local education authorities, which have been involving their community, the police, education and welfare officers and, I hope, increasingly involving parents, on whom rests the statutory responsibility for ensuring that their children are in school and learning when they should be.

Mr. Riddick: Question 16.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will be lucky.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

ENGAGEMENTS

Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Byers: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the work force at the Swan Hunter shipyards on Tyneside, who, despite the fact that the company is in receivership, have continued to produce a high-quality product on time for the Ministry of Defence with the receiver close to securing a new owner, but with work running out? Will the Prime Minister, as a matter of urgency, consider steps that the Government can take to safeguard the future of shipbuilding on the Tyne and thereby retain 1,000 highly-skilled manufacturing jobs?

The Prime Minister: I support what the hon. Gentleman has to say about the workers at Swan Hunter. As he will know, officials are continuing to support the receiver's efforts to sell Swan Hunter as a going concern.


I know that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) have been active on its behalf. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has told the company that foreign ownership would not preclude Swan Hunter from bidding for MOD work. As the hon. Gentleman will know, all MOD work is bid for on a competitive basis.

Mr. Trotter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the bid from France is successful, the new owners intend to use Swan Hunter to obtain substantial additional export orders for Britain and that the continuation of Swan Hunter in those circumstances would be good not only for the Royal Navy—by maintaining competition—but for Britain—by obtaining additional exports—and for Tyneside—by retaining an excellent work force?

The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. I think that it would be the collective wish of the House that Swan Hunter should continue its work in the future. I very much hope that it will be possible for a buyer to come in, so that Swan Hunter may be able to continue.

Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Foreign Secretary, who told the House yesterday that the blocking minority in the enlarged Community would be 27?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, I shall make a statement on that matter in just a few moments. When there is dissent between 22 and 27, there will not be automatic—[Interruption.] Between 22 and 27, there will not be automatic agreement, and I shall set out the circumstances then in a few moments.

Mr. John Smith: I am aware that we shall have the opportunity to ask the right hon. Gentleman more detailed questions, but I asked him about what the Foreign Secretary said yesterday in the House. Is not it the case that, if no agreement is reached in the Community, the blocking minority is 27? That is a fact, is it not?

The Prime Minister: If no agreement is reached in the Community, the blocking minority at the moment would move to 37. That is the point at issue. After agreement is reached, if agreement is reached and everything proceeds satisfactorily in the next 24 hours, the position would be that, if any country was part of a blocking minority that did not reach 27, but was over 22, that is 23 to 26, it would not automatically be 27. There would be a considerable delay and much further discussion.

Mr. John Smith: Is not the clear point this: that after the delay has expired, the blocking minority will be 27? Yes or no?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstands—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am afraid that he misunderstands, as the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) did yesterday. There is no time limit.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that enlargement of the European Community is in Britain's best interests and that the four strong and stalwart possible new members will not be put off by the knowledge that to fight hard for national interests is still possible when one is at the heart of Europe?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, we have been the foremost proponents of enlargement of the Community, because we should like a larger and more loosely knit Community. I very much hope that all the four applicant nations will win their referendums and become members of the Community from 1 January next year.

Mr. Ashdown: May I put the question to the Prime Minister a different way? I disagreed with him at the time, but does he recall saying last week that the principle to which he would wish firmly to adhere was that the Governments representing 30 per cent. of Europe's population should have an unqualified right of veto over the rest? Will he now confirm that that principle has been abandoned?

The Prime Minister: No, the right hon. Gentleman is misquoting what I said last week—but he is absolutely right that I am concerned about the legitimacy of Community decisions as an ever-larger part of the Community can be overridden under qualified majority voting. That is precisely why we have reached the safeguards in the past 24 hours and precisely why we have now obtained an absolute assurance that both the thresholds and the voting weights will be reconsidered and redetermined in 1996.

Mr. Devlin: Will my right hon. Friend take time during his busy day to send a message of sympathy to the staff, pupils and parents at Hall Garth school in Middlesbrough, which a considerable number of my constituents attend and which was the scene of the awful tragedy yesterday? Will he also send a message of commendation to the teaching staff for their prompt and effective action in dealing with the madman who broke into the classroom?

The Prime Minister: Not only would I be happy to do that, but I think that the message would have the unqualified support of every right hon. and hon. Member. I believe that all hon. Members would wish to send their deepest sympathy to Nikki's family and to the school. The event was horrendous—the sort of random act of madness that it is almost impossible to guard against—and for the families and pupils involved it leaves a legacy of horror that will take a long time to wash away. I congratulate the teachers and others for the way in which they behaved yesterday. Clearly, we shall have to see whether any further guidance can be given to schools in view of that tragic incident.

Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dunnachie: Does the Prime Minister realise that by ignoring the wishes of the people of Strathclyde, who overwhelmingly rejected the idea of water quangos, he is going against his own citizens charter?

The Prime Minister: I answered two questions on that subject last week and the hon. Gentleman will know that I do not agree with the way in which Strathclyde set up its referendum. It was not possible to retain the previous methods of controlling water authorities and we have chosen the method that we believe is most apt for the future.

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Lady Olga Maitland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that council tax increases in Liberal-controlled counties are well above the rate of inflation? Indeed, in Somerset the rate of increase is twice the rate of inflation, in Dorset it is three times the rate of inflation and in Hampshire it is five times the rate of inflation.

The Prime Minister: I am aware of that in the case of Hampshire and in the case of Richmond in London, and I suspect that if we were to examine the situation we should find a very high level of council tax under Liberal authorities everywhere. It is clear that if people want a lower level of council tax, they ought to vote Conservative.

Mr. Hanson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hanson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has now admitted that the average family tax rise from April will be £9 to £10—double what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says it will be, and more in line with Labour party predictions? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whom he now believes—the Chancellor or his Chief Secretary?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was talking about the average wage earner; my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was showing what the impact on the average family would be. They are both correct.

Mr. John Marshall: May I, as the chairman of the all-party friends of the Northern line group, welcome today's announcement about new trains for the Northern line? Is not this good news for 400,000 Londoners who travel daily on that route? Is my right hon. Friend aware that it will be particularly welcome in the London borough of Barnet?

The Prime Minister: That does depend on successful bids from the private sector. What has happened today is that the Government have given permission for London Underground to hold a competition for the provision of privately financed rolling stock for the Northern line. We shall be looking to the private sector to take on some of the risks of ownership, but I am confident that the use of that competition will pave the way for greater use of private finance in the future.

Mr. Keen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Keen: I congratulate the Prime Minister, not just because it is his birthday but because some of my constituents are impressed by the quality of the answers that he gives. However, people often point out to me—I have to agree—that many of the right hon. Gentleman's answers are unconnected with the questions. I think that that has to do with the random access file from which he

reads. Would not the random nature of the question-and-answer session be reduced if the right hon. Gentleman were to read all the answers first and then we were to ask questions?

The Prime Minister: Yes.

Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to join me in congratulating the management and work force of Slingsby Aviation in Kirkbymoorside on securing the contract to supply more than 100 training aircraft to the United States air force? The factory is being visited today by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. Does not that order prove that small firms in Britain can compete in the toughest market anywhere in the world?

The Prime Minister: I was not aware until now of that contract, but I am very happy to congratulate Slingsby. It is certainly the case that a large number of both small and medium-sized firms are now exporting a high proportion of their turnover. That reflects both their efficiency and the fact that the British economy is now acutely competitive.

Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Roche: Does the Prime Minister agree with his Chancellor, who has described national insurance as "not a tax", or with his former Chancellor, who thought that it was?

The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Lady is being very selective in her quote. The reality is as my right hon. and learned Friend has stated.

Mr. Haselhurst: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a traditional feature of life in British towns is their main post office? Is he aware of the consternation created in places such as Saffron Walden when the post office is threatened with having its services franchised out to a side-street newsagent? Will he undertake to review Government policy towards the Post Office with those concerns in mind?

The Prime Minister: I agree that post offices should remain very much a part of life in our towns and villages. That is why the Government are committed to maintaining a network of post offices across the country. What is important is the quality of service that customers receive, and that is what the Government want to see improved in Saffron Walden, as elsewhere. I will certainly reflect on the points made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Rooker: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Rooker: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the hon. Member for Birmingham,


Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), whose constituents last week, for the first time ever, welcomed the election of a Labour councillor?

The Prime Minister: Given the hon. Gentleman's constituency in Birmingham, if the electors did elect a Labour councillor, it certainly cannot be on the back of the record of the Labour Birmingham council.

Mr. Burns: Will my right hon. Friend please have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for

Transport to see whether it is possible, before the Easter recess, to have a statement on the road-building programme in the hope that he will announce the abandonment of the hated proposed M12 from the M25 to Chelmsford, which no one in south and mid-Essex wishes?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have heard the plea from my hon. Friend; I will

European Union (Qualified Majority Voting)

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on proposals to adjust qualified majority voting in the context of the European Union's enlargement negotiations.
In the negotiations, the Government had two principal objectives. First, we wished to see the negotiations succeed, provided the terms were acceptable. We have been strong and consistent supporters of enlargement. We look forward to welcoming Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden at the beginning of 1995, provided their peoples and parliaments so decide in the referendums that lie ahead.
On enlargement, it is necessary to amend article 148 of the treaty. Without a change, the blocking minority would automatically rise to 37 votes. Our second objective was to safeguard the rights of minorities in the period between enlargement and the 1996 intergovernmental conference, and to seek a fundamental review of qualified majority voting at that conference.
We believed that there should not be an unqualified, mathematical extension of the blocking minority to 27. We were concerned that successive, unqualified extensions had weakened the democratic legitimacy of the Community.
A large part of our concern stemmed from the handling by the European Commission of social measures. Article 118A of the treaty, which provides for health and safety at work, had been used as a vehicle for the adoption by qualified majority voting of measures affecting social affairs and employment. In addition, a proposal had recently been made to count the employees of multinational companies in the United Kingdom towards the threshold of the works council directive—although this measure had been brought forward under the social chapter, to which the United Kingdom is not a party.
My right hon. Friend said yesterday that we were pursuing our concerns about the social affairs measures. I can now tell the House that we have received assurances from the Commission that it will not bring forward any further proposals under the health and safety articles under its term of office except for measures directly and demonstrably relevant to health and safety at work. This means that we shall not face a repetition from this Commission of our experience over the working time directive, which we are challenging in the European Court of Justice; or over the young persons directive, which is in dispute between the Council and the European Parliament.
The Commission has also agreed now that proposals under the social chapter will not embrace in any way people or organisations in the United Kingdom. For the purposes of the social chapter, the United Kingdom will be entirely excluded from legislation. This meets a particular concern that we had with the works council proposal, which the other 11 member states are pursuing.
The proposal on qualified majority voting negotiated by my right hon. Friend at the weekend meets many—although not all
—of the Government's concerns. We have secured agreement that the review of qualified majority voting at the next intergovernmental conference will now include the question of thresholds. These will be reopened and re-examined, as will the number of votes attributed to

each member state in the Community. [AN HON. MEMBER: "That was available before."] This means, as my right hon. Friend said yesterday, that there will be a root and branch review of the system. This will have to take a fundamental look at the democratic legitimacy of decision-making.
At the request of the United Kingdom and Spain, the transitional arrangements from accession until 1996 will no longer provide for unqualified extension of the blocking minority to 27. The Council is under a legal and binding obligation to seek agreement on the basis of a minority of at least 23 votes. My right hon. Friend ensured that there would be no time limit for the fulfilment of this obligation.
The Commission and the presidency are required to take "any initiative necessary" to reach a solution adopted by at least 68 votes—that is to say, with no more than 22 votes against. This obligation is justiciable in the European Court of Justice. We expect it to be upheld scrupulously. Should there be any question of a breach of the obligation, we would reserve the right to take whatever action was necessary, and a number of avenues would be open to us. The first would be a legal challenge and the second would be use of the Luxembourg compromise.
The binding nature of the obligation is clearly understood by our partners, and stems from the form of the Council's decision. For example, Germany has said today that it regards the obligation as binding on the Council, and Germany has no doubt, it says, that all other member states of the Union will also fully respect these procedures.
On this basis, the Cabinet has concluded that, since we wish to see enlargement proceed, progress on qualified majority voting was sufficient to be acceptable until 1996. We are informing the presidency that, provided the concessions made to the United Kingdom and Spain are accepted without qualification by the other member states, the United Kingdom can accept this interim proposal.
Enlargement will bring into the Union countries which share Britain's open trading instincts, and which will be net contributors to the budget. It will be another step towards the wider, less centralised, open trading Europe for which we have been working.

Mr. John Smith: However the Prime Minister seeks to camouflage his retreat from his vainglorious assertions of "no surrender" last week, is not the plain fact that the Government have accepted a blocking minority of 27, as the Foreign Secretary was forced to admit in the House yesterday?
On the detail of the Foreign Ministers' declaration, is not his supposed triumph of obtaining a minor period of delay hopelessly undermined by the text of the declaration, which says in paragraph (c) that it is all
without prejudice to the obligatory time limit laid down by the Treaties and by secondary Law"?
Is it the case that if, at the end of the day, agreement has not been reached, the period of delay can be terminated by a simple majority, and then a blocking minority of 27 is required?
On the so-called assurances from the Commission, is there a written agreement which can be made available to the House? Can any assurances, whatever they may be, extend beyond the end of this year when the Commission's term of office expires?
Now that the Prime Minister has had to make a humiliating climbdown, will he explain to the House why the question of qualified majority voting was not raised


earlier in the enlargement discussions—for example, at the Lisbon summit or at the most recent Brussels summit, where all the key decisions on enlargement were taken?
Is not the explanation for the timing and for this whole sorry fiasco that a Prime Minister, fearful of the warring factions in his own party, propelled himself into an unwise conflict, which he could not and did not win, but which has resulted in unnecessary and severe damage to friendly countries and no advantage to Britain?

The Prime Minister: A number of points which were raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman are factually inaccurate. On the question why qualified majority voting was not raised earlier, the fact is that it was raised earlier. It has been discussed during the past year and for many months between Ministers and officials, and it has not previously been agreed. But it has been discussed for a great deal of time at both official and Government level. Unfortunately, it was not possible to attain an earlier agreement.
In what he has just said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman appears to have overlooked the fact that we have achieved a series of concessions that would not have been available if we had adopted his position of accepting, without let or hindrance, 27 for all areas immediately, which is what was sought by other people. We have not achieved the maintenance of the blocking majority of 23—I would ideally have preferred that—but neither have the other member states achieved what they would have wished, because we have obtained concessions, particular-ly concessions that protect our most vulnerable flank on social affairs.
As for the obligatory time limit, I know that it is complex, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman has misunderstood it. That time limit relates to the European Parliament after a common position has been reached, and not during discussion among member states for reaching a common position; the right hon. and learned Gentleman has misunderstood the point.
On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's simple majority point, if there were any attempt to use a simple majority to move forward to a qualified majority vote, under this agreement we would certainly be able to go to the European Court of Justice, and we would most certainly do so. I think that it is clear from what is being said by other member states that they would not be likely to go down that route. Certainly on previous occasions, they have not and they know what the impact would most certainly be.
The agreement with the Commission lasts until the end of this year, because this Commission ends at the end of this year. But I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we will certainly seek an extension under the new Commission next year, and I see no reason to suppose that we will not achieve it.

Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. Friend get rid of some puzzlement outside this House? In the regulations, is there some mysterious rule that says that Britain may not make her case for a particular course of action, or that, for some reason or another, it will be impossible for Britain to get enough votes on her side for a reasonable case to enable it to be adopted?

The Prime Minister: No, my hon. Friend is right that it is open to this country, as to any other country, to argue its case on areas of particular concern. We have said consistently throughout that it is necessary to safeguard certain areas of particular interest to the United Kingdom. Although, as I conceded to the House a moment ago, I would have preferred to retain 23 as a complete blocking minority until 1996, it is equally the case that there are areas of Community policy where a blocking minority of 27 suits this Government's policies more than 23. The CAP, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition says, is a case in point.
Fundamentally, we are seeking a root and branch reform of both the weighting of votes and the threshold of votes and that is what we have obtained in 1996. The hon. Gentleman opposite, who during the statement was shouting that that was available before, is wrong. The agreement on thresholds was available before, but not the agreement on thresholds and weighting.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The Prime Minister must explain to his party why he asks them to celebrate today what last week he told them was unacceptable. For my part, I welcome the fact that he has arrived at a solution—even if it is by accident—that now allows us to reform the CAP in the interests of the British taxpayer, and to admit more quickly the four new members, who will make a net contribution to the budget, and who are likely to be Britain's friends, provided we do not go on behaving as we have in the past two weeks.
No amount of clever words or verbal gymnastics can hide the fact that the Government have made a fool of Britain in Europe; that the Cabinet has made a fool of the Foreign Secretary; and that the Prime Minister has frankly made rather a fool of himself.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has clearly not understood the nature of the agreement that has been reached. If he had, he would have acknowledged the fact that the Council is under a binding agreement to aim for a basis of at least 23 rather than 27 votes when any blocking minority exceeds 22 but falls short of 27. That is likely to safeguard a number of our interests.
The right hon. Gentleman made no mention of the fact that he would have surrendered the unanimity rule. He is not prepared to fight in Europe for matters that may be of direct concern to this country—we are, as is every other Government in the Community. It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman would not support the Government in fighting for things that are plainly in the interests of the people of this country.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that this is an honourable solution to a difficult problem, which hopefully will allow the four applicant countries to join as soon as possible? Is he aware that it is important for those new countries to join before 1996, when negotiations begin at the intergovernmental conference? Is it not further important, if we are to achieve a thorough discussion of qualified majority voting, for those countries to realise what it is in this country's interests to do—that is, to make the whole of the working of the Community an important vehicle for the future? There are both the intergovernmental and the qualified majority voting sides—the totality is important for this country's interests.

The Prime Minister: We shall now have a thorough examination of both thresholds and weighting. Of course, that will also now include any of the applicant members that join the Community on 1 January next year. As my hon. Friend said, we were foremost in arguing for enlargement. I believe that that is very much in the interests not only of this country, but of the Community as well. In due course, we look forward not only to the entry of the European Free Trade Association states, but—perhaps around the turn of the century—to that of some, or all, of the Visigrad states.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: If the figure of 27 was unacceptable to the Prime Minister in any form last Tuesday, why is it acceptable a week later?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman heard me say a moment ago that, although I would have prefered 23, 27 has always been acceptable for some aspects—reform of the common agricultural policy being a case in point. What I said last week was that we insisted on safeguarding the rights of substantial minorities, and that is what we have achieved.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As the tapes have reported what are referred to as "fierce denials" by the Commission a few minutes ago about the guarantees on social policy, can the Prime Minister explain who is going to decide whether a directive is relevant to health or safety? Will it be decided by the Commission or the Council, and will it be done by a majority vote?

The Prime Minister: We know what the proposed directives are, unless fresh directives that are as yet wholly unconsidered are suddenly proposed, which is not likely. We know that only two directives are coming forward that will come under health and safety legislation, and those are two that we asked for.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Does the Prime Minister really not realise that leadership, in the context of his enfeebled Government., requires that he be brutal with the eccentric excrescences to his right?

The Prime Minister: I am always open to receive advice but, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not always take it.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Can I offer my warm congratulations to my right hon. Friend and the Government on achieving a most important modernisation of the Luxembourg compromise arrangements? Will he confirm that it is the determined intention of the Government to go ahead with the other member states and to develop the European Union in accordance with the Maastricht treaty?

The Prime Minister: Well, there is one serious qualification to an acknowledgment of that point—the fact that, whereas the rest of the European Union countries will proceed with the Maastricht treaty including the social protocol, we shall not. However, with that exception, we shall certainly proceed with developing the European Union, as set out in the treaty that this House passed.

Mr. Peter Shore: The Prime Minister is investing a lot of trust in the European Commission as far as assurances go. Does he recall that the Commission is the most arch-federalist of all the institutions in the Community and that its President is a

certain Mr. Jacques Delors—a notorious socialist, who wants to do precisely those things that the Prime Minister does not want him to do? If those assurances are as strong as the Prime Minister claimed, why do we also need a legally binding and enforceable agreement that the Community will not resort to qualified majority voting? If that qualified majority voting is challenged, surely the other European federalist body, the European Court of Justice, will decide who is right and who is wrong?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has set out very clearly precisely why we were unwilling to sign up to the proposals in front of us without the changes that we have now secured on social matters. It is precisely for the reasons that he has set out that we felt that we needed those commitments—and we have achieved them.

Mr. Tony Marlow: As no objective observer believes that this so-called compromise has achieved anything of real value for the United Kingdom, and as, as of now, my right hon. Friend has no authority, credibility or identifiable policy in this vital area of policy, why does he not stand aside and make way for somebody else who can provide the party and the country with direction and leadership?[Interruption.]

Hon. Members: Resign!

The Prime Minister: Anybody listening to what my hon. Friend has had to say, not just today but at any time in the past two and a half years, would in no sense suggest that my hon. Friend was an objective observer of any related matters. I remind my hon. Friend that it might be a useful novelty if, from time to time, he was prepared to support the Government whom he was elected to support.

Hon. Members: More!

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Who is going to clean up the blood?

Mr. John Hume: When all the waffle on this subject has died down, would the Prime Minister please tell me what has changed? Would he agree that, under 12 member states, 23 was 30 per cent. of the total vote, and would he agree that, under 16 member states, 27 is now 30 per cent. of the total vote? What has changed?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman is incorrect. Twenty-seven is just over 40 per cent. of the votes—[Interruption].—of population. When we joined the Community, the blocking minority was 30 per cent. of population; 27 is now over 40 per cent., and it is on that point that we think that in 1996 we need to change the system so that there is more democratic legitimacy for the way in which the Community reaches its decisions.

Sir Cranley Onslow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the really good news this afternoon is that the way is now clear to go ahead with the enlargement of the Community, which must be in this country's best interests in the long term?
The assurances from the Commission on the health and safety articles are important. We should not have had to fight for them, because they should not have been introduced by mismanagement and device by the Commission. My right hon. Friend will have the full


support of the House in fighting against any repetition of the Commission's abuse in that way—support which he could not expect from the Opposition.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is entirely right about our commitment to enlargement and the importance of enlargement to the European Union, both in the short and the long term. He is equally right to say that we should not have had to fight for those concessions. It is our belief that the Commission misused the treaty-based article 118A, but the fact is that we did have to fight for them, we have fought for them, and we have achieved them.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Prime Minister not aware that the agreement that the Commission wanted, the Foreign Secretary supported, the Cabinet has accepted and the Prime Minister has announced makes it more and more likely that laws will be imposed on this country in Brussels, which will supersede British laws and will deny the British electors the right to determine the laws under which they are governed? Is the betrayal of this principle towards a federal Europe not a denial of the principle that no Parliament can commit its successor, and that the British people must have the right to vote for those who pass the laws under which they are governed?

The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not have been better employed directing that question at those on his own Front Bench, who would have, first, unquestionably accepted 27 and, secondly, abolished unanimity.

Sir Michael Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend pause to reflect for a moment on the price of failure to agree? Would not a failure to enlarge or to protect minorities be disastrous? Away from the hothouse of this place, will it not be clear to everyone that this is the best agreement on offer?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. It was necessary to get enlargement and the extra protections to help minorities. By 1996, it will be apparent that a number of states will express concern at the present system and how qualified majority voting works. There is no proper equity between, for example, the populations of many of the countries and the votes that they can exercise in the Council of Ministers. That applies to the United Kingdom and other countries as well.
But if the actions of the European Union as a whole are to retain the support of the peoples of Europe, we shall have to look carefully at how we reach our decisions. That is what we have now agreed will happen, with a root and branch reform in 1996.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: The Prime Minister has conspicuously failed to convince 11 countries of the merits of his argument for 23 votes. Is he seriously suggesting that, during the next intergovernmental conference, he will be able to persuade 15 countries to turn back the clock and return to 23 votes?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman misun-derstands the nature of the discussions. A number of the countries were prepared to continue on the present basis because they were aware that there was to be a significant

examination of this matter in 1996. They will welcome the fact that it will now be more significant than they had previously imagined.

Sir Peter Hordern: In view of the increasing competition from Japan, the far east and the United States to every business throughout the European Union due to the success of the GATT round, is it not essential that, in the intergovernmental conference in 1996, agreement is reached so that votes more nearly accord with populations, and businesses throughout the community are not burdened with extra costs?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. There is no doubt that the excessive social burdens laid on many companies throughout the European Union are making their exports less competitive than they otherwise would be, and no longer competitive with similar companies in Japan, the United States and many countries in the Pacific basin. That is one of the reasons why we were not prepared to accept the social chapter. It is also why we believe that we must look at the changes in the voting system that I have outlined to the House today.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In the context of the transitional arrangements, will the Prime Minister explain how the Government will decide to use their votes at Council meetings in that interim period? For example, at the Fisheries Council to be held on 11 and 12 April, will there be qualified majority voting or the issue of unanimity, which is my understanding of the original treaty? Does he understand the concern within the fishing industry in Scotland that his only allies during these negotiations were the Spaniards, who want access to the North sea, and that that has been accelerated?

The Prime Minister: There is no change in the items dealt with either by unanimity or qualified majority voting under what has been agreed. The method of deciding—whether qualified majority vote or unanimity—is laid down in earlier treaties, such as the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty. That is not changed by anything decided in the past couple of days.

Mr. Edward Leigh: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his robust stance in defence of minorities in Europe? However, given the statements that have emanated from Europe this morning that a reasonable delay would entail only a few months, that any concessions would apply only to the present Commission, and that we could not claw back in 1996 what we lose now, does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a well-founded concern that we have conceded the figure of 27? Will he therefore give an absolute assurance to the House that, if we do obtain 23 votes, we can delay indefinitely directives with which we disagree?

The Prime Minister: I think the remarks to which my hon. Friend refers may have come from one Foreign Minister. They do not reflect the view of the Heads of Government to whom I have spoken in recent days.
I have no doubt that we will be able to delay under 23—quite how long will depend on the nature of the discussion. What is clear is that the time limit set out by that Foreign Minister is ludicrously wrong. If we feel that a matter has not been properly developed, we can, first, take it to the European Court of Justice, which may well take more than several years to determine it. Secondly, we


can use the Luxembourg compromise. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that, if we feel it necessary, we shall take one or both of those actions, and we have made that clear to our partners.

Mr. Derek Enright: When I asked the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) how on earth the Government got themselves on this hook, he replied, "I am a very good angler indeed." Is not that at the heart of the matter? Is it not about time the Government started acting positively in Europe, with Europe, for Europe; is it not time they discussed, in full public court, the question of monetary union—instead of holding their discussions behind closed curtains, as they are now?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman would make common cause with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford on his last point—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Nobody else does.

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I can better what my hon. Friend has said.

Sir Archibald Hamilton: The principal objective of the Government's negotiations was the enlargement of the Community. If we had refused to reach any agreement, that enlargement would probably have unravelled, much to the satisfaction of a number of countries in the EC. I therefore congratulate my right hon. Friend on the compromise reached—in particular, on the agreement that the voting structure should be looked at in 1996. If we continue to expand the Community to take in the Visigrad countries, we could reach the point where the main contributors—Britain, France and Germany—were outvoted by the rest of the Community.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. Unless there is reform, and if the mathematical formula followed through on this occasion were again followed on the next enlargement, France, Germany and the United Kingdom—three significant contributors to the Community—could be outvoted by qualified majority voting procedures. Clearly that would be absurd; it is one reason why I am confident that we will have a root and branch reform in 1996.
My right hon. Friend is equally right about the importance of enlargement to us and the Community. I think that it will increasingly change the nature of the Community for the better.

Mr. David Winnick: Given the contrast between the angry defiance of the Prime Minister last week and the surrender today, is it not understandable that virtually every Tory newspaper has been highly dismissive of the Prime Minister's conduct over this issue? The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has had the courage to say what many other Tory Members would undoubtedly say if they had his courage: it is time for the Prime Minister to go.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North is always ready with a quote, but I am not likely to be over-concerned about that.
As for the earlier, more substantive, concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman, we set out last week the fact that we needed some changes to protect minorities—changes to protect the position being abused under article 118A. We

have obtained what we sought in that regard. We have also required and obtained a much wider root and branch reform of voting procedures in 1996. That is not surrender; it is obtaining what we set out to obtain in the negotiations some time ago.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Is it not extraordinary cheek on the part of the leader of the Labour party to pour contempt on an honourable settlement, carefully negotiate-ed? He would not even have tried to achieve such a negotiated outcome. Is not his cheek probably born of the fact that he has never been in a position to negotiate anything since the Labour party accepted our membership of the European Union?

The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure that my hon. Friend is totally accurate about the right hon. and learned Gentleman's past. He may have had some part in seeking to negotiate devolution at some stage in the 1970s. If I recall correctly—and if not, of course I shall withdraw—he had a large responsibility in that, and it was not a notable success.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does not the whole affair reflect the fragility of the claimed protection of unanimity? Have not the arguments now descended from negotiation into the throwing around of mutual ultimatums, showing that the Community, far from being an organisation of co-operation, as time passes becomes one of coercion?

The Prime Minister: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. Nothing here affects unanimity or the national veto. We are still determined that that shall be retained, as are other countries. The only threat to unanimity comes from the fact that the Labour party is seeking qualified majority voting as the norm—which means, if it means anything, that a Labour Government, were there to be such a beast, would scrap unanimity and the national protection which that offers us.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Is it not always in Europe jam tomorrow? We were told at the end of the Maastricht proceedings that there would be no further move towards federalism. We have suffered this defeat; we have seen our opt-out of the social chapter eroded; and we are now told that all will come right in 1996. Will not the British people at some stage say to their Government, "You must say no, and mean it"?

The Prime Minister: The enlargement is something of which my hon. Friend would approve. It is of significant interest and, in the terminology of my hon. Friend, jam today. The enlargement will be of significant importance to the future working of the Community, as will subsequent enlargements from the Visigrad countries and perhaps in due course from others.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Does the Prime Minister recall that his predecessor was so adept at undermining the European efforts of her Foreign Secretary that eventually Geoffrey Howe was forced to exclaim during his resignation speech that it was like going onto the cricket pitch to find that his bat had been broken by the team captain. On this occasion, would it not be more appropriate for the bat to be broken over the team captain's head?

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend and I both propose to use the bat in Britain's interest, we shall have better use for it.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear, particularly to those outside the House, that this decision makes no alteration to our absolute veto on the most important issues, and that that will not be open for renegotiation in 1996? Does he also accept that, despite what many other people may say, he has the vast support of the majority of right hon. and hon. Members sitting behind him?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is entirely right to say that it makes no change whatever to the unanimity rule. As that is not understood by many people, and certainly not by many commentators who appear to have written about the matter recently, it is important that that message should be clearly understood in the House and beyond it.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Does the Prime Minister agree that talk of a veto is nonsense, and that his predecessor sold the pass on the British veto in 1985 with the Single European Act? Does he accept that it is all a big charade, and, because of internal divisions, he has turned Britain into a laughing stock throughout Europe?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman understands less than most of his hon. Friends. The veto still exists. Indeed, it was largely because it did exist that I was able to say no—as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said a moment ago—to the social chapter during the Maastricht negotiations. I was able to say no. The national veto stood behind me; had I not got that concession from our partners, I could have ceased to agree to the entire Maastricht treaty. The veto does exist; it is potent, it can be used, and I have used it.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I cautiously recognise the Commission's position on the remit of health and safety legislation and the social chapter, and welcome the fact that the thresholds can be renegotiated in 1996. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that it is now more important than ever for a review of the scope of European legislation—and the amount of legislation that is dealt with through qualified majority voting—to be carried out between now and 1996, in line with the doctrine of subsidiarity that the Labour party so hypocritically opposed during the Maastricht treaty negotiations?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right in those ambitious thoughts. Indeed, that is beginning to happen. The amount of legislation from Europe has been halved over the past year to 18 months, and I thoroughly welcome that: such a reduction is long overdue, and it has now been obtained.
As my hon. Friend will also know, under the subsidiarity provisions of the Maastricht treaty, the equivalent of 25 per cent. of Community legislation either has been repealed or is being revised.

Mr. John Hutton: How does today's obvious climbdown—coupled with the miserable failure of Britain's negotiating position over the reform of qualified majority voting—serve to advance the Prime Minister's oft-stated policy of putting Britain at the heart of Europe?

The Prime Minister: We seek, in this and in other matters, to influence what happens in the European Community in the direction that we think is right. We have done that very successfully with the enlargement procedure; we have done it very successfully with the reduction of legislation; we have done it very successfully with the subsidiarity provisions; and we have done it very successfully in other areas as well. As a number of my hon. Friends have said, that requires us from time to time to dissent from what happens to be the prevailing majority view in the European Union.
There is nothing anti-European about doing that. It is also the case that other nations—the French, the Germans, the Spanish, whoever it may be—dissent from time to time from aspects of European Union legislation. It is right that they should do so, because only through arguments and discussions of that sort can a proper consensus be reached.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Just to dispel any residual doubts, will my right hon. Friend spell out unequivocally those points of principle on which, in the national interest, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to stand, courageously and consistently, in our relations with the European Community?

The Prime Minister: We have made perfectly clear, over a long period, the areas that are of particular principle to us. The fact that we were not prepared to accept the social charter, for no other reason than that it would make it more difficult for companies in this country to sell their goods and maintain jobs, is a matter of principle for us; similarly, the maintenance of the national veto is a matter of principle for us. We also seek to make changes to the system of qualified majority voting. Some we have obtained on this occasion; for others we have laid down a marker in 1996. Those and other areas are matters of great importance to us.

Dr. Tony Wright: Does the Prime Minister believe that we have more friends and allies in Europe as a result of this diplomatic disaster? Does he think that we shall have more friends and allies in 1996 as a result of what has happened? Has the Prime Minister learnt at least one thing from this debacle—that any attempt to found British European policy on the internal interests of the Conservative party will end badly, and will deserve to?

The Prime Minister: I will tell the hon. Gentleman one thing that we have certainly learnt. We have learnt that we have obtained concessions in this negotiation that we would not have obtained if we had followed the Labour party's advice and just lamely said yes to 27.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend take this Opportunity to remind the country that the fight that he has put up for its interests is in complete contrast to that of the Opposition party? That party would have not only watered down the whole concept of QMV, but abandoned our national veto. Is that not the dividing line between the parties on Europe, and will it not be the issue that the country will need to see as part of the European elections?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that—except that, with his characteristic generosity, he neglected to mention that the Liberal party has precisely the same policies as the Labour party.

Several hon.Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We shall now move to the next business.

Stray Dogs

Ms Jean Corston: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow local authorities to permanently identify a stray dog before returning it to its owner; and for connected purposes.
The Bill addresses one of the most common problems in Britain's cities—the problem of stray dogs—and seeks to give local authorities assistance in dealing with it.
The House is well aware that Britain is a nation of dog lovers. Over one in four households have a dog. As The Times revealed last week, there are 7.3 million dogs in Britain, which represents an increase of almost 2 million in 12 years. For most people the dog is a treasured member of the family. They care for it, give it exercise and do not allow it to stray or be a nuisance to others. Most dog owners recognise that the freedom to own a dog involves responsibility to that dog and to their neighbours.
Unfortunately, there are those who do not accept their responsibilities, and who allow their dog to stray and become a nuisance to others. We all know that a stray dog may cause road accidents, may foul indiscriminately and, with other dogs, may become a menace to other people, causing fear and alarm.
The experience of my local authority, Bristol city council, is that the majority of stray dogs are what could be described as "latch-key" strays—dogs that are let out of the house to wander and return home later. In response, Bristol city council has an excellent dog warden scheme, dealing efficiently with strays. The wardens are dedicated to the welfare of the dogs and work closely with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to find homes for dogs whose owners do not wish to have them back.
Unfortunately, some of the dogs cannot be found new homes, and inevitably have to be destroyed. Many of the owners who adopt this casual attitude to their dog will no doubt acquire a new dog, which may well suffer the same fate.
In 1991–92, Bristol handled more than 1,800 stray dogs. It costs Bristol over £9 per day to kennel each of the dogs, which, by law, have to be kept for at least seven days. An unclaimed dog costs the council tax payers of Bristol up to £70 in kennelling costs, and a further £10 if the dog has to be destroyed. In 1991–92, more than 450 dogs were not claimed by their owners, costing Bristol council tax payers an estimated £31,500. Some authorities are destroying more than 1,000 dogs each year.
As anyone can see, dealing with strays is a costly business, and most authorities are not given the power to tackle the problem more effectively. Bristol city council encourages owners to have their dogs permanently identified. It is a sort of vaccination against loss, and is as painless as any other injection a dog will receive. It places a small microchip under the skin at the back of the dog's neck. The chip can be read by a hand-held reader carried by a dog warden, an RSPCA inspector and some police officers. The individual number given to each dog can be used to trace, by a simple telephone call, the name and address of the owner.
Bristol city council microchippped more than 800 dogs in the past year alone. It has increased the number of dogs that can be returned to their owners within hours, and sometimes within minutes, of being found. A dog returned


to its owner on the day it is found saves dog wardens precious time, and the council and the council tax payer considerable sums of money. Furthermore, a council that finds a dog whose owner does not want it back will get the owner to sign over ownership of the dog to the council, allowing it to be rehoused without having to be kept in kennels for seven days.
The Bill merely allows authorities such as Bristol, which handles large numbers of stray dogs each year, permanently to identify a stray dog before it is returned to its owner. Although the law requires dogs to wear a collar and tag when in a public place, in reality most strays do not have a collar and tag. Unlike a collar and tag, a microchip cannot get lost.
The Bill is not a dog registration Bill. It does not require compulsory registration for all dog owners. But it does give the authority the option of targeting the offending owners and ensuring that their dog, which has been allowed to stray, carries permanent identification.
Furthermore, many of Britain's councils will not have a significant stray dog problem, and will not require to take such steps; but I believe that local authorities throughout Britain will increasingly use this simple procedure to reduce the stray dog population and save precious public money. Already, between 1992 and 1993—just one year—Bristol has seen a decline in its strays of more than 400, which represents a fall of 20 per cent. This has been achieved by persuading owners to have their dogs permanently identified. The number of stray dogs being kennelled will fall even further if the Government allow the Bill to become law.
Finally, the Bill does not affect the responsible dog owner. It will not add to the burden of local authorities or the taxpayer in general; nor will the Bill place an extra duty on any local authority. It will merely add a valuable option for local councils to tackle a problem that is visible daily on our streets and in our neighbourhoods. The Bill is better for the welfare of the dog, better for people, better for children in parks and playgrounds, better for our urban environment, and much better for the taxpayer. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Jean Corston, Ms Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Tony Banks, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Bill Etherington, Mr. Roger Berry and Mrs. Bridget Prentice.

STRAY DOGS

Ms Jean Corston accordingly presented a Bill to allow local authorities to permanently identify a stray dog before returning it to its owner; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 May, and to be printed. [Bill 82.]

London Transport (Funding)

Ms Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At 12.30 pm today, the Secretary of State for Transport announced a major U-turn in the Government's policy with regard to funding for London Transport. Knowing how you deprecate such statements being made outside this House, and in the knowledge that the Minister for Public Transport is sitting on the Front Bench, would it perhaps be in order for me to ask the Minister a question about why this statement came when it did and precisely what is being promised in this announcement?

Madam Speaker: I am afraid that I cannot allow the hon. Lady to do that—it has to be a point of order to me and not to a Minister. However, obviously those on the Treasury Bench have heard what the hon. Lady has had to say. I have had no notification that a statement is to be made about that matter.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall—

(1) put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Gummer relating to Rating and Valuation not later than one and a half hours after their commencement; and
(2) put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Sir Fergus Montgomery relating to Northern Ireland Affairs not later than one and a half hours after their commencement; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments to the said Motion which she may have selected and which may then be moved; notwithstanding the practice of the House the said Motion shall be regarded as a single Motion:
and the above proceedings may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.
The purpose of the motion is, I think, clear and can be stated briefly. The first half of the motion provides for the motion on rating and valuation in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to be debated for up to one and a half hours, in the same way as if it were being discussed after 10 o'clock, and for the Question then to be put.
The second half of the motion similarly provides for up to one and a half hours' debate on the motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery), Chairman of the Committee of Selection, to determine the membership of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee—together, of course, with any amendments that may be selected. The Question would then be put on any amendments that are moved and then on the motion, or the amended motion, as a whole.
In other words, Madam Speaker, these are simple, sensible and straightforward proposals to enable the House to discuss and decide these matters in a way which I judge will be for the general convenience of hon. Members, and I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I do not agree in any way with the Leader of the House in his summation of the motion. As we shall be dealing later with matters concerning democracy in Northern Ireland, I am sure that the House will join me in sending our good wishes to Councillor John Fee of Crossmaglen, who suffered an appalling beating at the hands of republicans. He is the spokesman for democracy in Crossmaglen and the people of Crossmaglen have shown their support for him by putting him at the head of the poll on every occasion. He is their representative, not the people who so seriously battered him. We wish him well for a speedy recovery.
The Government's decision to allow only an hour and a half on each of these two important matters is a purely political manoeuvre which in no way reflects the seriousness of the issues to be debated. It is part of a general policy that has been followed by the Government to force through legislation without any debate or critical assessment of the Government's policies. The Government are therefore maintaining the same cavalier attitude towards the parliamentary process as they showed during the passage of the Non-Domestic Rating Act 1994, which they guillotined to prevent proper debate. The decision to limit debate on the Railways (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order is yet another example of that policy.
The order is an emergency provision which will come into operation on 1 April without any proper discussion. There has been no time to consult the interested parties, despite the long-term significance of the order. The increased rateable costs which the order will introduce will inevitably be passed on to the consumer, or the passenger on the train, thus adding to the increased costs of transport which will inevitably follow the Government's ill-fated and badly designed proposals for the future of British Rail.
The establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee is not simply a procedural parliamentary decision—it has major political ramifications. Therefore, discussion of the composition of such a Committee needs more time than has been allotted. Further detailed discussion on the proposed composition of the Committee is vital and we object strongly to the severely limited time allotted to the matter.

Mr. Newton: As I said, had the Railways (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order been debated at the more usual time for such orders—quite late at night—it would have been debated for only an hour and a half. Also, it would have been debated at night rather than at this more sensible hour. The hon. Gentleman does not appear to acknowledge that if the Committee of Selection motion had been dealt with at the usual time—after 10 pm—it would have been debated for only one hour. I am, therefore, allocating more time.

Mr. McNamara: We must ask why is the Government's business so thin today that they are allocating more time? This almost Pauline conversion and generosity in allowing an entire half hour to the Opposition is without precedent. Nevertheless, whether we have an hour or an hour and a half, neither is sufficient to discuss the important ramifications of the proposed appointments to this important new Select Committee.
In the debate on the establishment of the Northern Ireland Select Committee, the Leader of the House asserted

that, in the past, when considering their attitude towards the creation of the Northern Ireland Select Committee, the Government had taken account
of all the relevant political considerations in Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 9 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 340.]
When we examine the appointments to that Committee, we need further debate to discover the relevant political considerations behind the Government's decision to support the creation of the Northern Ireland Select Committee and to propose a composition that is patently unrepresentative.
To understand the political considerations, it is necessary to examine thoroughly the context in which the Select Committee was proposed. It would not be in order for me to do so in full, nor do I have the time, but it would be correct to examine the salient points that have governed the decision to appoint the Select Committee and which also govern its composition.
The creation of a Northern Ireland Select Committee has a significant symbolic importance that has been acknowledged by all parties represented in the House. The Ulster Unionist party is particularly aware of the symbolic value of such a Committee. In its press briefings, the Ulster Unionist party argued that, although the Committee will bring administrative benefits,
the symbolic effects will be more immediate. This will be the first positively unionist move by the British Government since our parliamentary representation was increased in 1979.
That is the Committee's significance and it is why its composition is so important. It has very little to do with the need for proper scrutiny and more to do with the restoration of Stormont.
The Ulster Unionists identify the Northern Ireland Select Committee with the failed Stormont regime of the past. Their briefing states:
The Northern Ireland Select Committee will probably want to sit regularly in Belfast. When we see a group of familiar parliamentarians again in Stormont with their doings reported in the local media, then Ulster folk will see something useful and purposeful in local politics … And this useful and purposeful achievement has been the result of Unionist pressure.
That is why we should have been given more time to consider the composition of the Committee.
A question remains over exactly what pressure was put on the Government to concede to a Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, despite the objections of representatives of the minority community in Northern Ireland, and to concede to a Select Committee whose composition is wholly unacceptable to the Labour party and to the SDLP. That is why we need more time to consider the terms of appointment of the membership of that Committee.
In the past, the Government have accepted that a Northern Ireland Select Committee should be established only on the basis of broad cross-community support because of its symbolic significance. The Government recommended against the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee in 1990, leaving the House to conclude that, due to the sensitivity of the talks process, there should be no alteration to the status quo. Having tabled the motion to establish the Committee, the Government are now prepared to go into the Lobby—

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: In a moment. The Government are prepared to go into the Lobby to support a gerrymandered new Committee.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I follow the hon. Gentleman's argument to the extent that it appears to him that some deal has resulted in the formation of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. What I cannot understand is how that would reflect his view of what the composition of a House of Commons Select Committee should be.

Mr. McNamara: That is my exact point. We objected to the Committee as such, we were defeated on that and the House came to a decision. We are now looking to the way in which the composition of the Committee will be decided. That will be decided by a subsequent motion, for which we have only an hour and a half's debate. What I am arguing is that we must consider the political reasons that have led to those particular people being appointed to the Committee. Hence, it is our argument that we should have longer than an hour and a half and that we should oppose the Government's imposition of that time limit, despite their unbounded and unprecedented generosity of giving us an extra half hour.
The Government have not been prepared to explain their own radical change in policy. They are now prepared to ignore the forcefully expressed wishes of one section of the community. That unscrupulous betrayal of an often-pronounced principle has helped to undermine trust felt towards the Government in Ireland and underpin the continuing distrust which is gradually being felt by both communities. That sense of betrayal is only heightened by the knowledge that the Government chose to override their principled stance for the sake of the squalid deal that they have made. The deal has nothing to do with securing peace in Northern Ireland and everything to do with the Government's narrow and unstable majority in the House. That is also why they have decided to gerrymander the composition of the Committee and why we should have more time to discuss it.
The Government have allowed their actions to be dictated not by a long-term strategy to secure political settlement in Northern Ireland, but by the need to maintain their so-called understanding with the Ulster Unionist party. The Government are allowing short-term political expediency to take precedence over the peace process; we should examine the nature of the proposals that they are making for the membership of the Select Committee and have more time so to do.
The Government are casting doubt over their assertion that Britain has no long-term strategic or economic interest in Ireland. They are calling into question the whole basis of their policy because they now have a selfish political interest in Northern Ireland—being able to maintain their majority.
During Northern Ireland questions on 17 March the Secretary of State claimed that there was "no question of decoupling" strand 1 from strands 2 and 3 of the talks process that had taken place. Yet that is precisely what the Government have done by unilaterally establishing a Northern Ireland Select Committee with such an unbalanced representation. We shall discuss that matter later, and that is another reason why we need extra time.
Under the framework for the inter-party talks agreed in 1991, strand 1 covers measures affecting the institutional

arrangements governing Northern Ireland. The establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee clearly came under strand 1, so its composition, too, would come under strand 1. By withdrawing the arrangements for a Northern Ireland Select Committee from the ambit of inter-party talks, the Government themselves are unravelling the strands agreed by the British and Irish Governments and by all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. Therefore, we need extra time to discuss the principles behind the appointments.
The Government have also undermined the principle on which the talks were based—"nothing is agreed until everything is agreed." During Northern Ireland questions the Secretary of State said:
Whether the parties in the resumed talks wish to maintain that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed is a matter for them. That is not a matter on which I can lay down a rule."—[Official Report, 17 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 998.]
That is a strange position for the British Government to adopt, given that they were a party to the original framework agreed in 1991, and given that we assume that they will still be a party to any future inter-party talks.
If that matter is to be left purely to the parties, it means that the Government are acquiescing in an unravelling of the situation. Apparently, the British Government are relinquishing all responsibility for the future structure of the talks. That would affect the composition of the Committee, because it would be within its ambit to examine those proposals. Therefore, we need more time to discuss its membership. The Government's attitude is irresponsible, because it has the potential to hinder progress towards an agreed political settlement.
The Government appear to wish to surround themselves in a fog of uncertainty. As I said during the debate on the motion to establish a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, the Government have two agendas—one to secure their majority in the House of Commons by keeping their right wing and the Ulster Unionists on board, and the other to keep alive the peace process based on the Downing street declaration.
Obviously, that matter will come within the ambit of the discussions in the Select Committee. The membership of the Committee must be of importance when such a fundamental matter is to be discussed, so we should have more time to discuss that membership later today.
The establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee is part of the agenda for maintaining Ulster Unionist backing. However, the Government's second agenda, for the peace process, is causing some conflict with the Unionist party. There appears to be some disagreement between the Secretary of State and the followers of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, over the current status of bilateral talks taking place between that party and the Minister of State.
Doubtless that would be reflected in the attitude that might be taken by the members of a new Select Committee, were it to be appointed and were we to have more time to discuss its composition. We hear the Secretary of State saying that the tripartite talks, with the three strands, are still taking place, but the Ulster Unionist party says that it is not part of that set of talks. It considers the present talks to be bilateral only, between the Secretary of State and the different parties, including itself. Others say that because


the Minister of State is advising the Government of the Republic of what is taking place in the bilateral talks, the three strands still exist.
The questions arise: are the Ulster Unionists in the three strands or are they not, and is what the Secretary of State says accurate? That fog cannot help in the search for a solution and we may find it replicated or even made thicker by the representation of hon. Members who will apparently be on the Select Committee. Therefore, we should have more time to discuss that representation.
The Secretary of State stands accused, in yesterday's Belfast Telegraph, of misrepresenting the position of the Ulster Unionist party. The Secretary of State is reported to have caused offence because of his claim that, since the talks with the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—the Minister of State—are continuing on the same basis as before, the Ulster Unionist party is still discussing the three strands. That would be a positive development. The Labour party maintains its support for the inter-party talks. If we had more representatives on the Select Committee—a matter which we shall be discussing later—and if we had more time, we should argue that the talks should continue. However, the development would also be a surprising one given that the leader of the Ulster Unionist party has condemned the
circus format of the previous talks process".
The right hon. Gentleman's reference to "the previous talks process" suggests that he regards the talks as being over.
There is, therefore, an urgent need for Government clarification. The clarification should come in today's debate on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, as, presumably, the position of the Ulster Unionist party was one of the political considerations that Government took into account when they decided to table a motion to establish a Northern Ireland Select Committee and to support the inclusion of the hon. Members whose names appear on today's Order Paper. By opposing this motion, we are asking for more discussion of the membership.
All those factors behind the decision to back the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee and the Committee's proposed composition should properly be debated and examined in today's debate. This is why the Opposition object to the Government's provision of only an hour and a half.
There is absolutely no agreement on the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee and, as is shown by the Order Paper, there is certainly no agreement on the Committee's composition. Yet the Government are attempting to deny the House sufficient time even to debate the question of composition.
The proposed composition of the Northern Ireland Select Committee is still further proof of the Government's duplicity. While claiming to want equality, they have allotted representatives of the nationalist community in Northern Ireland just one seat on the Committee. This is an example of gerrymandering at its worst. They have allotted the Labour party only two seats—a gross distortion of parliamentary procedure, as there are 270 Labour Members of Parliament. The Labour party is demanding more time for today's debate because of the wide-ranging implications of the proposed composition of the Northern Ireland Select Committee.
In considering a matter as important as the composition of a Select Committee and the amount of time that should be provided, the Government have a responsibility to the

peoples of these islands to secure a just and lasting political settlement for Ireland—a settlement that has the agreement and support of the people of Ireland. The Government should not jeopardise such an important objective by establishing a Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee with a wholly biased composition, purely and simply at the whim of one of the parties to the talks, in a desperate effort to shore up an increasingly shaky Government with an increasingly shaky position on the Floor of the House.
For those reasons, we oppose the motion.

Sir Peter Emery: It was not my intention to speak, but I should like to clear up two points.
It appears to have been suggested that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is being appointed contrary to the advice of the Procedure Committee. If that is the implication I must make it absolutely clear that the Procedure Committee, in its report of 1990, said quite clearly that it would not be possible to go on for ever refusing to appoint a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. That, the Procedure Committee said, would have to come, but it would be up to the Government, having particular regard to the evidence from the Secretary of State of the day, to decide the proper time. When we reconsidered the matter we altered not one jot or tittle of the report. In other words, exactly the same recommendation stood in 1993.
With regard to numbers, the Procedure Committee made it clear that all the political parties in Northern Ireland should be represented. I understand that to be what is happening. Somewhat strangely, the Government are not demanding a majority on the Committee. The latter aspect is slightly unusual in respect of Select Committees of this nature.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: The right hon. Gentleman said that all the political parties in Northern Ireland will be represented. Will he, for the benefit of the House, enumerate the political parties from Northern Ireland that will be represented?

Sir Peter Emery: Let me correct myself: the report said that all the political parties represented in the House should be represented on the Select Committee. That is what is happening.
In normal circumstances, there would have been no means of objecting procedurally to the length of debate. If the Government had tabled the matter for discussion after 10 o'clock the debate could have lasted only an hour, and the Opposition could not have objected. In fact, the 20-minute speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is a gift of the Government, and the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will still have an extra 50 pet' cent. in the actual debate. Thus, the suggestion that this is a case of Government gerrymandering is an exaggeration and indicates a slight misunderstanding. I cannot see that there are any grounds for such an implication.

Mr. Don Dixon: The right hon. Gentleman has made two points that I should like to take up.
First, he said that it is an exception to the rule for the Government to relinquish their majority on a Select Committee and to provide representation for each Northern Ireland political party. I suggested to the Committee of Selection that the Government could keep their majority by


taking seven seats and giving two to the Labour party and one to each of the Northern Ireland political parties. However, as the Government had done a deal with the Ulster Unionists at the time of the debate on the Maastricht treaty, they were afraid to give them fewer than two seats.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government are being very generous by allowing this debate. The Government's conscience must have pricked them, as they tabled the motion before the Select Committee's decision. It seems to me that they felt self-conscious and guilty because of their attempts to gerrymander the Committee. Incidentally, the recommendation of the Committee of Selection was adopted on the basis of a majority Conservative vote.

Sir Peter Emery: As the Deputy Chief Whip knows only too well, I do not know what goes on in the Committee of Selection; nor can I be expected to. Indeed, I understand that such matters are normally confidential.

Mr. Dixon: It was forced through.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. It is not in order, in the debate on this motion, to discuss what happened in the Committee of Selection.

Sir Peter Emery: I understand that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was led astray by the Labour Party's Deputy Chief Whip—something I shall resist doing in future.
The Labour party is laying a false trail and the sooner we get on with the business that should be before the House the better.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: It is quite obvious to all those hon. Members present today and to all those who attended the debate on 9 March that the Government have not provided adequate time for discussion of the various ramifications of the motion concerning the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. The pretence that this is exclusively a procedural matter is being perpetuated. It is, of course, a procedural matter, but that is almost incidental to the Government's attitude to and policy on the Select Committee. The Government have made a major political decision. But we have also seen an about-turn and a betrayal of the statements and undertakings of successive representatives of the Government over a number of years. In that context, the Government's integrity has been brought entirely into question, certainly in the eyes of the people in Northern Ireland whom we represent. The Government continue to affirm that both communities must give support before the matter is brought forward, so the Government lack integrity in that respect.
The Government also broke the integrity of the inter-party talks, which were based on a delicate and long-negotiated agreement dated 26 March 1991. That agreement stated that all matters could be put on the table and discussed, and matters relating to relationships in Northern Ireland, relationships between north and south and relationships between Northern Ireland and Westminster would be discussed in detail. The Government made a decision unilaterally without consulting my party—I do not know about the other parties—on an item that was on the agenda for the inter-party talks. Their integrity in that respect has gone

by the board. This is not a procedural matter; a major political decision has been made. The Government have brought before the House a shameful and treacherous decision.
The Government have betrayed their commitment under article 4 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which says:
in relation to matters coming within its field of activity, the Conference"—
the Anglo-Irish conference—
shall be a framework within which the Irish Government and the United Kingdom Government shall work together
(i) for the accommodation of the rights and identities of the two traditions which exist in Northern Ireland; and
(ii) for peace, stability and prosperity throughout the island of Ireland by promoting reconciliation, respect for human rights, co-operation against terrorism and the development of economic, social and cultural co-operation."
The two-tradition approach has been abandoned totally in the approach taken today.
On several occasions over the past couple of years, the Secretary of State and the Lord President of the Council have referred to the need for cross-community and cross-electoral support for the parties represented in the House; indeed, as late as 1 December 1993, the Procedure Committee, in its report for the 1993–94 Session, stated:
It should be remembered that the only reason given by the Procedure Committee in 1978 for its decision not to recommend the creation of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs was the continuing uncertainty over the future constitutional arrangements for the Province".
That still pertains today. The argument is still valid, yet it has been totally rejected in the business before the House both on 9 March and this evening.
A letter dated 2 December 1993—if I may read from the Committee's journal—says:
Thank you for your letter about the Procedure Committee and the possible Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. Your letter was drawn to the attention of the Committee at its meeting yesterday.
As you will see from the Report the Committee subsequently agreed, we were not concerned with the issue whether a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs should be established now. We dealt solely with the updating of our 1990 report in respect of the possible composition of such a Committee.
Ultimately it will be for the House to decide whether to amend the Standing Orders, appoint a Select Committee and to nominate its Members.
A few days before the announcement in the House on 16 December, assurances were given regarding the necessity for inter-community support and cross-party support in the House.
On not one occasion during the whole process—the establishment of the Committee, the nominations, the decisions about the detail—has my party been consulted. Not once have we been consulted about the times at which meetings would take place. I do not know whether this is a procedure that could be the subject of a point of order but that is the fact of the case. There was supposed to be cross-party support in the House, but we were not even asked about the matter, never mind being invited to give an opinion on it. [Interruption.] I am prepared to take interventions if that is what hon. Members behind me want. However, if they do not want to intervene formally, I shall be obliged if they will keep quiet.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said no later than 11 November 1992 that such a proposal
would have the support of the broad community in Northern Ireland".—[Official Report, 11 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 892.]
It does not. On 10 February 1993, the same statement was made by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, who


referred to the need to examine the extent of support from elected representatives from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland. No such support exists. On 22 July 1993, the Secretary of State referred again to the
extent of support from elected representatives from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland".
That consent does not exist.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is putting forward the pros and cons for the Select Committee, which is not the subject of the motion before the House. The Select Committee has been established and the question before the House is whether sufficient time has been allowed for debate. That is the issue.

Mr. McGrady: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your direction in the matter. I was following the lead given by previous speakers. My points illustrate—I have only touched on them—that more time is required to delve into the issues that I have raised. That is why I am stating those issues: we have not had the opportunity to make our points. You may not recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I do not think that you were in the Chair at the time—that, on 9 March, when the motion relating to the appointment of the Select Committee was introduced, hon. Members who have taken a constant interest in Northern Ireland affairs did not get an opportunity to speak. As the sole representative on that night of the nationalist people of Northern Ireland, I had only a few minutes in which to make my points on the matter.

Mr. Mallon: I appreciate the points that have been made about the time factor. I wonder how much time was spent on researching the designation of political parties in the north of Ireland. I have been active in Northern Ireland politics for the past 25 years and I recognise why someone from the DUP, the UUP or the SDLP would be appointed, but I fail to understand why others have been appointed. I simply want clarification of the basis of the political party—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is anticipating a debate later this evening in which he may well catch my eye.

Mr. McGrady: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) for his intervention, the subject of which will be dealt with again in the debate later this evening. My hon. Friend makes the valuable point that consultation of the elected parties in the House did not take place. That is categorically correct; consultation did not take place. Whether consultation should have taken place is a moot point and a matter of opinion.
The point that I have been making is that a series of important issues is at stake. Today and on 9 March, the Government tried to present their case as though this were merely a procedural matter—I do not mean that in any insulting way—and a technical matter for the House to address. It is not a technical matter—and the Government's activities and statements clearly show that they do not consider it to be a technical matter. Even the timing of the announcement—24 hours after the Downing street declaration on 16 December, the Leader of the House said that the establishment of a Select Committee had been agreed—was obviously a political statement whose intention it was to buy political loyalties. It had nothing at all to do with the needs and requirements of Northern Ireland. Going back to the needs and requirements of the

parties in Northern Ireland, one should look at what the leader of the official Unionist party said about—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Ulster Unionist party"]—I take that correction. The names of political parties in Northern Ireland are apt to change depending on the venue and on the order in which the members wish to speak. I will leave it at that for the moment.
The modest demands of the UUP were for less of a procedural arrangement than that which we have now. That party said that it wanted the existing Select Committees to deal with departmental matters for Northern Ireland, as they do here; there were only one or two issues—security and, believe it or not, the Anglo-Irish Agreement—which it would be useful for the Select Committee to debate.
I believe that the point has been made. On your direction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not refer to percentages or numbers in connection with the appointments until the later debate, but they again show that there has been a lack of integrity on the part of the Government. They have not dealt even-handedly with the communities in Northern Ireland, as they have consistently alleged in statements made during the past two or three years they wanted to do. The integrity of the Government among the community that I represent is at an all-time low.

Mr. Peter Robinson: You properly instructed the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the matter that we must consider is whether 90 minutes is a sufficient length of time to discuss the motion concerning the membership of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs later this evening.
I suppose that, if any political party in the House had a right to complain that 90 minutes was not sufficient, it would be my party. On 9 March, the two previous complainers in the debate so far—the Labour party's spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), and the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady)—took 19 minutes and 11 minutes respectively to speak during the debate. [Interruption.] Yes, 11 minutes. Hon. Members should look at Hansard. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) was given only two minutes at the tail-end of the debate.The Democratic Unionist party is entitled to have the opportunity to speak, and I hope that we will be able to catch your eye later this evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and perhaps do a little better than the two minutes which we had on the previous occasion.
The issue is whether there will be sufficient time later this evening. I was delighted to hear the logic of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, who now clearly believes that it is essential to have a better airing of Northern Ireland affairs in the House and that one and a half hour debates are not adequate. I suggest that that is an implied criticism of the Order in Council procedure that operates for Northern Ireland affairs. I trust that we can look forward to the hon. Gentleman's support on the matter of having Northern Ireland business dealt with fully by way of Bills in the House.

Mr. McNamara: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is disgraceful that great, fat pieces of legislation that are really Bills should be dealt with by the Order in Council procedure. I put it to the hon. Gentleman, his hon. Friends


and the Ulster Unionist party that the remedy lies in their own hands—in an agreed devolved government for Northern Ireland with a strong Irish dimension contained therein. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is enough on that.

Mr. Peter Robinson: As you have ruled the hon. Gentleman out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I cannot reply and state that there was of course agreement between the parties in favour of a devolved assembly in Northern Ireland but that the Social Democratic and Labour party backed out of it.
It is important to Northern Ireland that there should be a Select Committee to deal with Northern Ireland business. I do not believe that it is to the merit of the House that that should be delayed. Both the previous speakers argued that there are political implications—indeed, that the prime issue is political rather than procedural. I contend that it is only political in their minds because they do not want anything to occur in relation to Northern Ireland that stops it moving increasingly towards Dublin rule. They would seek to oppose anything that is not consistent with a continued momentum towards Dublin.
Everyone knows that every Department has a Select Committee which looks at its work and can quite properly call the Minister responsible to account. A Select Committee can also bring the civil service to account, particularly in Northern Ireland where there is less accountability than elsewhere. Nowhere is it more important than in respect of the Northern Ireland Office that we should have such a procedure of the House. The key issue is therefore procedural rather than political. The argument that more time should be devoted to the consideration of political issues attendant on the motion is not well founded.
I am delighted that even the hon. Gentleman who most strongly opposed the setting up of the Select Committee—the hon. Member for South Down—has now decided to join in; he clearly recognises that the Committee is not so political as to constitute a bar on his membership of it, and he wants to be a part of the process whereby Northern Ireland business is scrutinised.The hon. Gentleman need not say that members of his party are not boycotters, because they have been boycotters in the past. They boycotted the Stormont Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly in 1982. I am glad that they are not boycotting on this occasion and that they recognise the validity of having a Committee that deals with the Northern Ireland Office and can look into matters dealt with by Northern Ireland Ministers.
If there was an argument that more time was needed because the matter had somehow jumped out of the woodwork—that it was a surprise issue whose ramifications hon. Members had not had adequate time to consider—the House would have had to consider seriously whether more time was necessary. However, it is not a new issue. It has been considered and debated on many platforms, including in this House, over a long period. It was, of course, most recently discussed in some considerable detail by the Procedure Committee and by the Committee of Selection. The matter has had a considerable airing, which suggests that no more time is needed on this occasion to determine its membership.
The Labour party would be on very weak ground if it argued that the Labour membership should be substantially increased, considering that the Labour party has not shown sufficient interest in Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom to set up in Northern Ireland. It seems content to rely on the representation of the SDLP, which it sees as its sister in the battle in Northern Ireland. The Labour party should be content that the SDLP will be represented on the Committee and will be capable of representing that interest. If that is the contention offered by the Labour party for having more time to discuss the matter, it seems to me to be false.
The other argument advanced by those on the Labour Front Bench is that some sordid backroom deal between the Government and the Ulster Unionist party has resulted in the establishment of a Select Committee. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North quoted a press statement from the Glengall street camp that referred to the first Unionist step for many years. That set me thinking about what might be considered the last Unionist step. I suppose that it must have been the increase in the number of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland here. I wonder which party proposed that in this House. Of course, the hon. Gentleman's party supported that Unionist step. What were the circumstances in which it did so? I recall that it was looking for larger numbers to go through the Lobby. Now it has the audacity to point its finger at someone who has been trained in its school, who copies its practices, who does exactly the same as it did in the past and will willingly do in the future.

Mr. McNamara: First, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will recall, I voted against that policy for precisely the same reason that I oppose what is happening today. Secondly, when it came to the vote of confidence, the result of that deal was that the majority of the Ulster Unionists went into the Lobby with the Conservative party and turfed out the Labour Government. That might yet happen to the Conservative Government.

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman can live in hope. We shall see whether that occurs.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I happened to be a party to that situation. The UUUC, as it was called, never undertook to vote for the Labour party to keep it in power in a vote of confidence.

Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend has been heard and I am happy to endorse his views.

Rev. Martin Smyth: If the hon. Gentleman does not remember, perhaps his colleague the hon. Member for Antrim, North will confirm that the Labour party was betrayed on that occasion by its sister party, the Social Democratic and Labour party and by the republican whom it brought over from Fermanagh to vote for it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I was here, too, but that that matter is not relevant to this debate.

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North attempted to attach relevance to what he considered to be the deal between the Ulster Unionist party and the Government by saying that that party was in some


way being rewarded by being given additional members and that additional time was therefore required to sort out why it should have two members instead of one.

Mr. Mallon: Surely, the remark made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) points to the wisdom of the decision. The personnel within the Social Democratic and Labour party changed as a result of the increase in the numbers. He and members of the Committee of Selection spent an enormous amount of time properly researching the proposed Select Committee. Can the hon. Gentleman inform the House, from his own investigations, which parties represent the north of Ireland in this House?

Mr. Robinson: I shall not deal with Donegal and the rest of the north of Ireland, but if we are referring to Northern Ireland, which is an integral part of the United Kingdom, the parties in this House are the Ulster Unionist party, which sits behind the hon. Gentleman; his own party, the SDLP; the Ulster Democratic Unionist party; and the one in which he is most interested, the Ulster Popular Unionist party, whose chairman, president and Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder), is chairing a meeting of the Standing Committee on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. It is altogether proper for the official Unionist party to have two seats. The UUP has nine Members in this House, and the SDLP has four, it would seem proper—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That debate is to come and the hon. Gentleman said that he was hoping to catch my eye. He should not anticipate that debate now.

Mr. Robinson: I was not attempting to build some insurance into the system by getting the matter off my chest now. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was simply saying that we no longer need additional time to discuss these matters because the Select Committee has properly and proportionately allocated the seats to Northern Ireland parties and therefore that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) can be content that the task has been done well and additional time is not required to consider it.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government are trying to straitjacket Parliament by limiting debate to one and a half hours for each item, which is artificial and unnecessary? The exchanges on this issue demonstrate that it would have been preferable if a business motion had not been tabled so that we could have first debated rating and valuation and then launched into the debate on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. That debate could have been extensive and lasted far more than one and a half hours.

Mr. Robinson: I would be the last person to try to limit the length of debate in the House. I judge only that the Government must have considered that some Opposition Members would table a series of amendments to try to change each member of the Committee, which might have kept the House voting for a considerable time.
The hon. Member for North Down advanced the argument that, in some way, additional time was required because there had been a betrayal—

Rev. Ian Paisley: It was the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McCrady).

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Member for South Down said that the Government had betrayed the nationalist community in Northern Ireland. That was an argument that I found difficult to swallow. The hon. Gentleman over-eggs his cake if he expects the House to believe that the nationalist community in Northern Ireland has in some way been put down by the Government. The Government have done everything possible to elevate the nationalist community, as has been seen from a number of their so-called initiatives. The hon. Gentleman's argument that the setting up of the Committee is contrary to the talks agreement of March 1991 does not hold water. That agreement came to an end on the day that the talks ended.

Mr. McGrady: The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the talks came to end in November 1992. He mistates the case. The official Unionist party [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] Very well; the Ulster Unionist party. The UUP and the DUP withdrew from the talks. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] They withdrew because that week saw a meeting of the Anglo-Irish conference between the Irish and British Governments. The remaining parties to the talks were the British Government, the Irish Government, the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Alliance party. Coincidentally, those are the four parties that are still at the table.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That just demonstrates that if hon. Members are not able to prepare for the debate, all sorts of comments come up. The motion is clear. Could we please get back to it? The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has been straying a little in the past few minutes.

Mr. Robinson: I have been given the first good reason why I should change my mind. Clearly, more time is needed if we are to educate the hon. Member for South Down. He is labouring under the assumption that the talks did not come to an end and that the Unionists left. But all the parties put out an agreed statement that showed that the talks had come to end. They came to an end because the nationalist parties demanded that there should be an intergovernmental conference meeting. Obviously, hon. Members do not require more time to discuss this issue as it was clearly dealt with in the statement.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Was not the basis of the talks that there would be no inter-party conferences while the talks were taking place and that both the official Unionists and our party said at the table, "If you bring the talks to a close by having an inter-party conference meeting, they will be finished." The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said, "Yes, they are finished" and the Irish said that they were finished. I do not know what the hon. Member for South Down has been finishing, but everyone else knows that the talks are finished.

Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend's comments are accurate. It is inconsistent for the hon. Member for South Down to argue that the Government have dishonoured the March 1991 agreement when the March 1991 agreement said specifically that the talks would last between meetings of the intergovernmental conference. Therefore, as soon as a meeting of the intergovernmental conference came, ipso facto the talks must have ended. There has been no betrayal of the nationalist community. Perhaps another time I shall have the opportunity to describe the nature of the Government's betrayal of the Unionist community.
It was argued that, because in that March 1991 agreement there was a remark that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed, and because during the talks there was no agreement on the setting up of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, there should not be a Select Committee. I have already said that that 1991 agreement came to an end the moment the talks stopped and therefore the Government were no longer bound by it.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) is now in the Chamber, it might be worth while drawing attention to the fact that we nearly had to drag the hon. Gentleman and the SDLP to the 1992 talks during the last week, and that they were outraged that we, the Ulster Unionist party, should introduce a summation paper during the last week. They came most reluctantly, and departed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has absolutely nothing to do with the motion before us.

Mr. John Hume: No one is interested in solving problems around here. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber. Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Robinson: You can understand what we have to put up with in Northern Ireland, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that we shall have your sympathy from now on.
If the agreement of 1991 came to an end the moment the talks were ended by the SDLP insisting on the intergovernmental conference, the Government were not bound to obtain the agreement of everyone to any change and the House could never allow itself to be gagged in terms of changes that it might make.

Mr. William O'Brien: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robinson: Yes, but I had intended to sit down.

Mr. O'Brien: I have been following the arguments of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) closely. In view of the interventions and exchanges that have been made, and the fact that there is more to be said on issues involving Northern Ireland—especially this issue—does the hon. Gentleman agree that there ought to be more time to discuss those issues? This is no different from the other issues that we discuss in Select Committees. Does the hon. Gentleman accept the view that we need more time to discuss Northern Ireland issues?

Mr. Robinson: Given a little ingenuity, hon. Members still have another four hours and a little more in which they might make whatever comments they want.
Finally, the Government are not under an obligation to obtain everyone's agreement, especially on a matter that is germane to the procedures of the House. How could the Government allow the procedures of the House of Commons to be determined by the agreements of those outside the House of Commons—especially if those outside the House of Commons include a foreign Government?

Mr. Bob Cryer: I wish to speak because I was one of the people who objected to the business motion. I am sorry that I did not hear the opening speeches, but I was chairing the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which is why I want to speak later about the rating and valuation order.
The business motion, to curtail debate in one case and to extend debate by a very small amount in excess of the usual amount of time in the second case, puts the House of Commons in an unnecessary straitjacket. An open-ended business motion to take the debate up to 10 o'clock would have been acceptable. In curtailing the debate to three hours, I suspect that the Leader of the House is proposing the type of limitation that we can expect if the Jopling report is ever implemented—I hope that it never will be—to curtail parliamentary discussion and to put debate in a straitjacket. That is one reason why I wanted to object to the business motion—it was unnecessary. I object to the Jopling report being brought in by stealth—because that is what the limitations represent.
The rating and valuation order, debate on which is limited to an hour and a half, is quite important. One of the advantages of Parliament is that there is always a number of people—perhaps a handful—who take a specialised interest in something as obscure as the draft Railways (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1994. I do not think that there should be a limitation of an hour and a half before 10 o' clock. There is usually a limitation on an affirmative instrument after 10 o'clock and I think that we could usefully reconsider that, because affirmative orders are as important as primary legislation. Indeed, some of them—although not this one—repeal primary legislation which has been considered by the House in great detail. Therefore, the arbitrary hour and a half is frequently inadequate to deal with the complexities of subordinate legislation. It is unreasonable to impose a limitation of an hour and a half before 10 o'clock simply because that pattern has so often been followed after 10 o'clock.
There are only two items of business on the Order Paper today, because the third item is a European Community document, which will be dealt with forthwith. If there is a vote, that will take 15 minutes; if it is a head-nodding job, it will go through in perhaps 20 seconds. The whole of the evening is before us, yet the Leader of the House proposes to finish the sitting, if we curtail the debate, at half-past 8. I do not think that, if we have the opportunity, we should limit debate in that way because of the importance of subordinate legislation.
I am happy, in a way, that the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill has focused attention on the enormous powers of Ministers. I gave evidence, which was not very welcome, to the Jopling Committee to the effect that I thought that Parliament should sit longer hours, not shorter. Parliament does not give adequate scrutiny to the enormous number of statutory instruments and regulations that pour out from the present Government. As the Leader of the House knows, the number is now running at 3,300 to 3,500 per annum. When we have the opportunity to debate a very important order, we should not curtail debate to an hour and a half.
If I may remind the House without going into the debate that would ensue if people so chose, the draft Railways (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1994 places on the railways the imposition of providing a rateable value of the


English railway hereditament of £191 million, and a smaller sum, £7.3 million, for Welsh railways. We could debate how much better that £191 million would be used on improving the services to British Rail instead of abstracting that money to an organisation that will be broken up and privatised, and is already in enough difficulties simply maintaining services without taking out £200 million—which is only a transfer payment in any event. I do not want to debate those matters, but they are justified arguments about an order that would impose a significant charge on British Rail, discussion of which is, however, limited to an hour and a half.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is typical of how the Government deal with legislation on non-domestic rates? He will remember that, when the House debated the non-domestic rates legislation on 12 and 13 January this year, the Government decided to guillotine the proceedings. Does he agree that that is not an acceptable way to discuss such important provisions?

Mr. Cryer: Yes; and it applies to all subordinate legislation.
We accept that Ministers should be given powers to fill in the nuts and bolts of Government administration, but the Government are abusing the process. They are producing some 3,500 instruments a year, which is more than any other Government in history, whereas they are supposed to be taking legislation off people's backs. Labour Governments managed with some 2,000 statutory instruments a year; Tory Governments cannot do so because they are centralising. In the process, Parliament must have a degree of accountability—it has little enough.
To curtail debate on this limited, narrow occasion when we have the time available is entirely unjustified. Parliament normally has a good idea of self discipline. Normally hon. Members who want to promote the railways issue have a peg on which to hang their cause. They would use the railways valuation order to ensure a reasonable debate. If no Member wants that, the motion goes through in 10 or 15 minutes, with five or 10 minutes apiece for speeches by Front-Bench spokesmen.
Most controversy is on the second motion. None the less, the hour and a half limitation is not necessary. One of the great virtues of Parliament is that, unlike Ministers who have access to the Dispatch Box when they choose because they determine the agenda, Back-Bench Members must be ingenious. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who is grinning, has access to the Dispatch Box whenever his business managers organise it for him. Back-Bench Members must use such motions to get time to discuss important issues. That is why I object to the fact that the Government are centralising and concentrating Government powers, and straitjacketing Parliament to make it all the easier for them.
If I am taking a bit of extra time, it is because oodles of time is available, yet the Leader of the House wants us to finish early. The first motion is on rating and valuation and the second relates to the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. The Leader of the House should have said that the business could continue until 10 o'clock. Indeed, to judge from the exchanges that have taken place so far, it might have been useful to have a 10 o'clock business motion saying that the business, though opposed, could continue until any hour. Many more hours after 10 o'clock

could be filled because the issue is controversial. If the House deals with an issue more controversial than the affairs of Northern Ireland, I have yet to know it.
The speeches from Members on both sides of the House have shown that there is great bitterness, anger and concern about the Select Committee. In addition to the motion, five amendments have been tabled to be taken in an hour and a half. They are not just Back-Bench amendments but are supported by Front-Bench Members, which in some people's eyes—not mine—makes them more important. Back-Bench Members cannot table a prayer and have it debated unless it is supported by members of the shadow Front Bench. When dealing with subordinate legislation, Back-Bench Members must have the support of Front-Bench Members to get time on the Floor of the House. So there is a rule that items supported by Front-Bench shadow Members are more important.
The meritocracy of this place—the sort of thing that gives preferential treatment to Privy Councillors, which ordinary Back-Bench Members find outrageous—means that motion No. 3 on Northern Ireland affairs should have been given more time than the hour and a half allocated to it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) said, the exchanges tonight illustrate the controversy surrounding the motion.
I look forward to hearing the argument of the Leader of the House. He should abandon the idea of introducing Jopling by sleight of hand in business motions such as this. We should kick it out and let the House decide the priorities. He should stop interfering with the business of the House in this way.

Mr. William O'Brien: My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) spelt out pIainly and adequately why we should press for more time to discuss the motions. In my experience of discussing motions on Northern Ireland, this is the first time that I have heard Members representing Northern Ireland say that they do not need more time. I have always agreed with them that we need more time to discuss Northern Ireland issues because of the controversies that arise.
In my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), I said that today's exchanges reinforce the demand for more time to discuss Northern Ireland issues, whether they are political or matters of principle. We are in danger of giving too much away to the Executive if we do not show them that we need more time to discuss issues, particularly on Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East referred to the fact that, because the Labour party does not organise in Northern Ireland, its membership of the Committee should be considered. If it is right to criticise the number of Labour Members on the Committee, should not the same principle apply to the Tory party

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was not here at the beginning of the debate—

Mr. Vaz: He was.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise if the hon. Gentleman was here. However, I made it clear that hon. Members must not anticipate the debate that is to come, which concerns membership of the Committee. This business motion is specifically about motions Nos. 2 and 3, not about how much time should be given to debating


Northern Ireland as such. I should therefore be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would be specific in addressing the issue.

Mr. O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was referring to the orders and my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, East. May I finish what I was saying? The hon. Gentleman's reference was relevant to the discussion, but I accept your ruling on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Tory party is organised in Northern Ireland and some of us got here having defeated Tory candidates.

Mr. O'Brien: I accept that point, but will not pursue it, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have ruled on it.
Given the exchanges across the Chamber and the concerns expressed by hon. Members about the principles set down in the motion, I support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South that more time should be allocated so that we might hear hon. Members' views on significant issues relating to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman has said that this is the first time he has known Northern Ireland Members not to use all the time available to make their points. Lest that be misconstrued as a lack of interest or concern on our part, I should point out that we are acting in recognition of the Chair's ruling that the debate should be only about the time factor. Perhaps we should all make a small sacrifice and deny ourselves the opportunity to listen to our own voices in this of all weeks. That might allow us to get on to debate the Northern Ireland issue.

Mr. O'Brien: I acknowledge that point, although it prompts certain other controversial questions—which I could put to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that there is more that he could say on this issue.
The restriction on the time for debate on the orders is a retrograde step—especially when people press for even less time to discuss them. I appeal to the Leader of the House carefully to consider our request for more time in future to discuss these issues.

Mr. Newton: This has been a debate of what I may tactfully term endless fascination to those of us who have witnessed it. I can only say how much I envy my hon. Friends who are to have the chance to serve on the Select Committee, following what I have seen this evening—

Mr. McNamara: When are they to have that chance?

Mr. Newton: I hope that they will have it following the recommendations of the Committee of Selection. Given that the Select Committee is to include the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady), for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder), and the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), I suspect—based on what I have seen this evening—that its members will spend less time scrutinising the Government and the Northern Ireland Office than scrutinising each other. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Another fascination of this debate—there were many—was to witness the transformation of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), not present in the Chamber now, from glowering at us from one side of the Gangway to glowering at us—after an intervention—from the other side of it.
Yet another fascination offered by the debate was the the speech by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). It reappeared like a familiar friend from our previous debate on the establishment of the Committee. I cannot say that it reappeared by popular demand, but it doubtless made a contribution to the recycling industry—I listened to it with great interest.
Both the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) referred to the iniquity of the guillotine on the non-domestic rating legislation. I remind them that, so draconian was that guillotine, that the Opposition could not even fill the time for which it allowed.
This further "draconian" measure on rating and valuation—allowing an hour and a half for discussion of the proposals—has led the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Leicester, East to demand a £200 million reduction in the money available to local authorities this year. If British Rail does not pay £200 million in rates, local authorities will not receive that revenue—a most interesting demand betokening a welcome conversion, somewhat unexpected, to restraint on public expenditure.

Mr. Vaz: The point that my hon. Friend and I were making was that there was no need to bring in this measure three days before it was due to come into effect. There has been plenty of time to debate it since November 1993, when the Railways Act became law. Our objection is to the fact that the order has been brought in at such a late stage.

Mr. Newton: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and I will deal with it in my conclusion.
Although there has been a good deal of point in my comments so far, I should like to end on a more serious note. I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether I am allowed to advert to this fact, but the rating and valuation order went through another place on 21 March. So awful is it—so important is it—that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not about to debate the order.

Mr. Newton: I was merely about to observe, having been told that there is not enough time to debate the order, that when this allegedly dreadful measure went through another place on 21 March, Her Majesty's Opposition did not see fit to offer a single word on it, let alone to discuss it for an hour and a half.
I should tell the hon. Member for South Down that it is my understanding that there were conversations through the usual channels with his party. For all I know, the problem may lie with the usual channels in his party—

Mr. McGrady: I reiterate what I said: there was no communication of any sort with my party about the setting up of the Select Committee or the appointment of its members.

Mr. Newton: That is different from my understanding, but I do not question the hon. Gentleman's integrity; I


regard him as an hon. Gentleman and I respect his veracity. Perhaps it is all a misunderstanding, but I have put my view on the record, as he has his.
The last fascination of this debate is that it has been rather like those Adjournment debates when the Leader of the House offers the House a holiday, only to be confronted by a solid phalanx of Members simultaneously demanding more and more work and praying that the Leader of the House will not accept their blandishments. There has certainly been an element of that in this debate.
I have provided an hour and a half each of prime time for the rating and valuation order and for discussion of the Select Committee membership. That has resulted in my being here to listen to some rather strange speeches for the better part of an hour and a half or more. The alternative would have been to table the rating and valuation order for 10 o'clock tonight or tomorrow night, followed by an hour—not an hour and a half—on the Northern Ireland Select Committee motion. If that is what hon. Members want, they had better tell me. I think that what I have offered the House is sensible, reasonable and right, and I hope that the House will accept it.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 233.

Division No. 183]
[5.47 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Clappison, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Alexander, Richard
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Coe, Sebastian


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Congdon, David


Amess, David
Conway, Derek


Ancram, Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Arbuthnot, James
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cormack, Patrick


Ashby, David
Couchman, James


Aspinwall, Jack
Cran, James


Atkins, Robert
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baldry, Tony
Day, Stephen


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Devlin, Tim


Bates, Michael
Dickens, Geoffrey


Batiste, Spencer
Dicks, Terry



Beggs, Roy
Dorrell, Stephen


Bendall, Vivian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dover, Den


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Duncan, Alan



Body, Sir Richard
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Booth, Hartley
Dunn, Bob


Boswell, Tim
Dykes, Hugh


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Eggar, Tim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Elletson, Harold


Bowden, Andrew
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bowis, John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bright, Graham
Evennett, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Faber, David


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fabricant, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Burns, Simon
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Butcher, John
Fishburn, Dudley


Butterfill, John
Forman, Nigel


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Forsylhe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Carrington, Matthew
Forth, Eric


Carttiss, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Cash, William
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)





Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
MacGregor, Rt Hon John



French, Douglas
MacKay, Andrew


Fry, Sir Peter
Maclean, David


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Madel, Sir David


Gardiner, Sir George
Maginnis, Ken


Garnier, Edward
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gill, Christopher
Malone, Gerald


Gillan, Cheryl
Mans, Keith


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marland, Paul


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marlow, Tony


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorst, John
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Merchant, Piers


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mills, Iain



Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hague, William
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Moate, Sir Roger


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Sir Hector


Hanley, Jeremy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, Sir John
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nelson, Anthony


Harris, David
Neubert, Sir Michael


Haselhurst, Alan
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hayes, Jerry
Norris, Steve


Heald, Oliver
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hendry, Charles
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Hicks, Robert
Page, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Paice, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Patnick, Irvine


Horam, John
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pawsey, James


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Pickles, Eric


Ho well, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jack, Michael
Richards, Rod


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Riddick, Graham


Jenkin, Bernard
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Gwllym (Cardiff N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Key, Robert
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knapman, Roger
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knox, Sir David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shersby, Michael


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sims, Roger


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Legg, Barry
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Leigh, Edward
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Soames, Nicholas


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Speed, Sir Keith


Lidington, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lightbown, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Spring, Richard


Lord, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Luff, Peter
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John






Steen, Anthony
Walden, George


Stephen, Michael
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)



Stem, Michael
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Stewart, Allan
Waller, Gary


Streeter, Gary
Ward, John


Sumberg, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sweeney, Walter
Waterson, Nigel


Sykes, John
Watts, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Whittingdale, John


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Widdecombe, Ann


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Thomason, Roy
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Willetts, David


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Thurnham, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wolfson, Mark


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wood, Timothy


Tracey, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Trend, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Trimble, David



Trotter, Neville
Tellers for the Ayes:


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Michael Brown.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Darling, Alistair


Adams, Mrs Irene
Davidson, Ian


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Allen, Graham
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Denham, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Dewar, Donald


Ashton, Joe
Dixon, Don


Austin-Walker, John
Dobson, Frank


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Donohoe, Brian H.


Barnes, Harry
Eagle, Ms Angela


Barren, Kevin
Eastham, Ken


Bayley, Hugh
Enright, Derek


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Etherington, Bill


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bell, Stuart
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bennett, Andrew F.
Fatchett, Derek


Benton, Joe
Faulds, Andrew


Bermingham, Gerald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Fisher, Mark


Betts, Clive
Flynn, Paul


Blair, Tony
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Blunkett, David
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foulkes, George


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Fraser, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fyfe, Maria


Burden, Richard
Galloway, George


Byers, Stephen
Gapes, Mike


Caborn, Richard
Garrett, John


Callaghan, Jim
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Canavan, Dennis
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cann, Jamie
Gordon, Mildred


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Grocott, Bruce


Clelland, David
Gunnell, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hall, Mike


Connarty, Michael
Hanson, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hardy, Peter


Corbett, Robin
Harman, Ms Harriet


Corston, Ms Jean
Harvey, Nick


Cousins, Jim
Henderson, Doug


Cox, Tom
Heppell, John


Cryer, Bob
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hinchliffe, David


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Hoey, Kate


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Dalyell, Tarn
Home Robertson, John





Hoon, Geoffrey

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
O'Hara, Edward


Hoyle, Doug
Olner, William


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Patchett, Terry


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pendry, Tom


Hume, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hutton, John
Pike, Peter L.


Illsley, Eric
Pope, Greg


Ingram, Adam
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jamieson, David
Prescott, John


Janner, Greville
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Randall, Stuart


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Raynsford, Nick


Keen, Alan
Redmond, Martin


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Rendel, David


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Khabra, Piara S.
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Kirkwood, Archy
Rogers, Allan


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Terry
Ruddock, Joan


Litherland, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sheerman, Barry


Loyden, Eddie
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lynne, Ms Liz
Short, Clare


McAllion, John
Simpson, Alan


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McFall, John
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


McGrady, Eddie
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McKelvey, William
Snape, Peter


Mackinlay, Andrew
Soley, Clive


McLeish, Henry
Spearing, Nigel


McMaster, Gordon
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McNamara, Kevin
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McWilliam, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Madden, Max
Stevenson, George


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Stott, Roger


Mahon, Alice
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mallon, Seamus
Straw, Jack


Mandelson, Peter
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marek, Dr John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Turner, Dennis


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Vaz, Keith


Martlew, Eric
Wareing, Robert N


Meacher, Michael
Welsh, Andrew


Meale, Alan
Wicks, Malcolm


Michael, Alan
Williams, Rt Hon Alun (Sw'n W)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Milburn, Alan
Winnick, David


Miller, Andrew
Wise, Audrey


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wray, Jimmy


Morley, Elliot

Wright, Dr Tony


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)



Mowlam, Marjorie
Tellers for the Noes:


Mudie, George
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Mullin, Chris
Mr. John Cummings.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall—

(1) put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Gummer relating to Rating and Valuation not later than one and a half hours after their commencement; and
(2) put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Sir Fergus Montgomery relating to Northern Ireland Affairs not later than one and


a half hours after their commencement; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments to the said Motion which she may have selected and which may then be moved; notwithstanding the practice of the House the said Motion shall be regarded as a single Motion
and the above proceedings may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.

Orders of the Day — Railways (Rateable Values)

6 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I beg to move,
That the draft Railways (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th March, be approved.
The order was made under the powers in schedule 6 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, and sets the 1994–95 rateable values for the British Railways Board and Railtrack in England and Wales respectively.
Before I deal with the details of the order, it may be helpful if I remind the House about the prescription of rules for determining rateable values in England and Wales, and their application to the railways. In certain cases, assessment of non-domestic property by local valuation officers is impractical; the 1988 Act therefore contains powers for the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales to prescribe rules for assessing such property.
I should point out that there is nothing new in that: it follows a long-set precedent. The practice of prescribing the rateable values of certain public utilities was started many years ago, to overcome various technical problems associated with assessment by conventional means. Indeed, the railways' rateable values were first set by statute in 1946, before nationalisation. The General Rate Act 1967 and the Local Government Act 1974 included powers to prescribe rateable values in such cases, and in effect the current provisions simply continue that treatment.
The national rail network comprises property of a highly specialised kind, which consequently presents complex problems of valuation. It is also so extensive that the resources needed to value it by conventional means simply have not been available. The powers to prescribe the rateable value for the British Railways Board for the 1990 revaluation were therefore used in 1989.
Those powers were also exercised at that time for the telecommunications industry, the water industry, canals, the electricity generation, transmission and distribution industries, gas supply, statutory docks and harbours, the London underground, the docklands light railway, Tyne and Wear metro and the Glasgow underground. British Coal, whose values had been set by statute, moved into conventional assessment for the 1990 revaluation.
I am aware that some industries that do not suffer from that manner of assessment consider it a type of beneficial special treatment. It is not. There is no financial benefit whatever to be gained from a rateable value that is prescribed rather than assessed by the Valuation Office agency or the Scottish Assessors Association; the end result should be, and is, the same.
The most important difference lies in the fact that, unlike businesses in conventional assessment, these ratepayers have no right of appeal against their assessments. We therefore intend to end the prescribing of rateable values by statute as soon as possible for all industries. To that end, the Valuation Office agency and the Scottish Assessors Association have conducted a review of the alternatives to prescribed assessment for the industries involved.
I am pleased to say that, as a result of the review, a number of industries will move to conventional assessment for the revaluation of 1995: the telecommunications industry, canals and certain light rail systems—Tyne and Wear metro, the docklands light railway and the Glasgow underground. The threshold at which docks and harbours will become subject to prescribed assessment will be raised from a turnover of £50,000 to a turnover of £1 million. We hope that, for the revaluation in the year 2000, the remaining docks and harbours, water and gas supply, electricity transmission and distribution will be conventionally assessed.
The main reason why it was not thought possible for them to move to conventional assessment in 1995 was that the resources to carry out such assessments were not available in the remaining time—not only at the Valuation Office agency and the Scottish Assessors Association, but in the companies themselves. A great deal of information about all the properties occupied by the companies concerned must be drawn up by those companies; that requires considerable time and effort, especially when national networks are involved.
To ensure that the necessary information will be available in good time for 2000, we are starting now. In discussions with the industries over the 1995 revaluation, attention is being given to what facts will be necessary, and to what time scale should be used to allow a move to conventional assessment in the year 2000. At this stage, however, the valuation difficulties involved in assessing the rail network and electricity generation seem unlikely to be resolved in time for the revaluation in the year 2000: those industries appear set to remain in prescribed assessment after that time. We intend, for the 1995 revaluation, to change the rateable values of the industries remaining in prescribed assessment by a factor based on the movement in comparable conventionally assessed properties; but that is for 1995.
The draft order that we are discussing deals with the financial year 1994–95. It makes provision for the change in rateable occupation of railway hereditaments in England and Wales as a consequence of the privatisation of rail services. The provisions of the Railways Act 1993 allow for transfers of property between the British Railways Board and other companies; the largest of those transfer schemes is the one concerning Railtrack. On 1 April this year, Railtrack plc will become a new Government-owned company, and the occupier of the majority of the property previously owned by British Rail.
We do not want the change in the organisation of the railway system to alter the local tax burden on the property. The order—I stress that it has an extremely narrow compass—simply divides up what would have been the British Railways Board's rateable values for 1994–95 between the board and Railtrack; no more and no less. The ratio of the split is 95 per cent. for Railtrack—including the operational track and stations—and 5 per cent. for the board. The values are given separately for England and for Wales. Attendant negative resolution regulations, laid before Parliament on 21 March, define the property to which those values apply.
Separately, we are already consulting Railtrack and the board about the rateable values of their property, as part of the preparation for the 1995 revaluation of all

non-domestic property. A separate order will reset the rateable values for the rail network in Scotland in the same way; but, as there are powers for that to be done with retrospective effect—that is not the arrangement for England and Wales—the order will be presented in due course.
We have consulted both the British Railways Board and Railtrack about the content of the order, and about the regulations. They are in agreement with the order, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Keith Vaz: When I heard that the Minister was to move the motion, I thought that he would try to beat his record of 66 minutes—established last Friday, when he spoke in the debate on inner cities. I am delighted that he bustled along, almost at the speed of a 125, to tell us all that he has to tell us about the order in the space of seven minutes.
That, of course, is what the Government would like us to do: they would like to enable the House to speed along in considering this important provision, so that no proper time is allowed for discussion of its merits and examination of its content in the context of the way in which the Government have approached non-domestic rating.
Yet again, the Government are trying to force through an order that will complicate our existing business rating system still further. As I said earlier, during the debate on the allocation of time, this follows in the footsteps of a debate that took place on 12 and 13 January, when the House discussed the Non-Domestic Rating Bill. I am sure that the Minister will remember that debate: he was present, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
On that occasion, for the fifth time in four years, the House was asked to discuss non-domestic rating legislation. This is another example of an order that must be discussed and passed, because the new company that will benefit from it will start trading on 1 April—in 72 hours' time. As with the non-domestic rating legislation, the time that we can spend discussing the order has been guillotined. The Opposition believe that it is extremely important that the House should be given sufficient time to discuss and contemplate the implications of such an important issue, especially as it will affect the amount of money that is to be distributed to local authorities.
In the previous debate, the Leader of the House threatened my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South and myself by saying that local authorities would lose £200 million if the Opposition refused to allow the order to pass. The Minister is the longest serving Minister in the Department of the Environment—I do not know what he has done right or wrong to be kept there while so many others have been moved on—and he and the Government will know that the Government have passed 155 Acts of Parliament over the past 15 years, and that the latest settlement for local authorities will greatly restrict the amount of money that they will receive.
So the idle threats about £200 million being lopped off the amount to be given to local authorities are not something which we take seriously. The Opposition want to know why the Government are so frightened that they will not allow sufficient time for a proper discussion of the order.
The order seeks to apportion the rating liability between British Rail and the wholly owned, stand-alone, Government company, Railtrack plc. I suppose that it is for that reason that the Minister for Public Transport has joined the debate. In effect, the Minister wants to apportion a bad system between two bodies. That does not automatically make right what the Government are proposing to do.
The system is intensely unjust, and it is time for new measures to be proposed so that it is equitable for small and large national companies. If that is not done, the burden on local authorities will become unbearable and, yet again, it will be the struggling businesses and home owners who are called upon to make up the lost revenue through higher taxes.
We have heard from the Minister a rather half-hearted argument in favour of formula rating. Perhaps his mind was not quite with us as he bustled along in his speech. Perhaps he is thinking about the tour of the far east that he is about to undertake. I did not think that he put his usual passion into arguing in favour of keeping formula rating—a system which has been discredited by everybody, and is now used by the Government only in order to complete the collection of the rates in an unfair and slapdash way.
As the Minister said, the Local Government Finance Act 1988 opened the way for phasing out all formula rating assessments. We know from previous debates that the Government have accepted that formula rating has outlived its usefulness as a means of valuation.

Mr. Baldry: I just want to reiterate that point. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman was listening. I said clearly that we feel that the system has outlived its usefulness, and that that is why we are changing it. I hasten to add that the system was introduced a long time ago, and was reintroduced by Labour Governments in 1967 and at other times.

Mr. Vaz: I did listen to what the Minister was saying, even though he spoke at such great speed.
The Opposition believe that the system that has been operating with regard to the public enterprises is inherently unfair. We should like to know when the Government propose to abolish the entire system. The Minister talked about 1995. As we know from previous debates on non-domestic rating legislation, the Government have promised that certain things will happen by certain dates but, like the Non-Domestic Rating Bill this year, they have not happened.
It is our view that formula rating never purported to be a proper and true reflection of rates liability, although it did serve a purpose when one Government body paid another Government Department. I am not impressed by the Minister's argument that lack of resources makes a proper assessment impossible. We do not believe that there should be a further delay until 1995 in the abolition of this unfair system. I hope that the Minister can give us a date a little nearer than the year 2000 for the removal of other items on the local rating list.
Railtrack plc will be liable for only 95 per cent. of its current rating liability. Therefore, it will receive extremely preferential treatment, as it will be exempted from at least a full 5 per cent. of its liability. The Minister should explain how decisions were made about what level of rating liability was acceptable to the Department of the Environment and the Treasury, as the revenue that they are

failing to collect is owed to the taxpayer. I know that the Minister said that he would prefer to have an opportunity to consult the various bodies involved. The two principal bodies are Railtrack plc and British Rail, so it should not be too difficult for him to explain why the percentages were agreed at that level.
It is important to know why the Government have decided to bring the order before the House only 72 hours before the new company starts trading. After all, as the Minister for Public Transport will know—he piloted this legislation through the House last year—the last pieces of the jigsaw fell into place in November 1993. Therefore, there has been plenty of time to bring this order before the House, and plenty of time to enable us to discuss the matter properly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South has said, many points need to be raised.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend think that the lateness of the order may be due to the fact that Railtrack plc in its embryonic non-trading stage will have had to take into account the payments in the order before deciding what sort of charges it will levy to franchisees? Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent announcement about the charges by Railtrack plc, which are much more enhanced than originally prescribed by the Department of Transport, might reflect the provisions of the order, and that the order was tabled late so that those calculations could be made?

Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. Unfortunately, because of the short time between the publication of Government business and the debate, it has been impossible for me to contact those who run Railtrack plc.
However, I have had discussions on the telephone with representatives of British Rail. They cannot comment on why the Government have decided to bring this order forward at this late stage—72 hours before the company starts trading. As I pointed out to them—I have yet to hear a different argument from the Government—there has been plenty of time to discuss this matter. There is no reason on earth why there could not have been a debate later this evening, when there would have been plenty of time to discuss these proceedings.
We have heard that the Government have extended the scope of formula rating, which will just serve to complicate rating law instead of simplifying it. The most pressing concern, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South, is that there is a possibility that the burden of rates that is to be placed on Railtrack will mean a subsequent increase in the amount that will have to be paid by consumers.
I see that the Minister is chatting to the Minister for Public Transport. Perhaps the latter is helping him on this point. I hope that the Minister will give assurances to the already hard-pressed train users—such as those who may travel to Leicester or Kettering through the constituency of the Minister for Public Transport—that they will not have to bear the burden of the increase in charges as a result of this order.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will raise this matter should he catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not think that there is a Member of the House who knows more about


the railway industry, and I look forward immensely to hearing what my hon. Friend has to say about these pertinent matters.
It is important for Ministers to understand that orders of this kind carry certain implications. It is quite easy for Members and Ministers to come into the House and make fine speeches supporting or opposing orders, but it is essential that we understand the implications of what we are doing.
They are precisely the lessons that we have had to learn from the way in which the Government have dealt with non-domestic rates. We learnt those lessons earlier this year, when the Non-Domestic Rating Act 1994 was forced through the House at such speed. The effect of that measure was a fundamental change in the way in which non-domestic rates were collected and the amount of money that went into the non-domestic national pool.
That is why we decided that it was important to discuss the proposal very carefully and highlight the changes that were going to occur. It is extremely important—especially as the Government are starting a new enterprise and they do not know what the future of Railtrack plc will be; it is a wholly new company—that we examine the measures very carefully.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the order is entirely inadequate? The legislation was originally designed for a national network, but British Rail is to be broken down into a series of separate operating entities. Therefore, there will, of necessity, have to be a breakdown in the charge for rateable valuation in the order. The public at large will have no knowledge—the order provides no such knowledge—of how the assessment was made. This means that Railtrack can argue for higher charges for each section based on this order, without providing detail which the consumer could challenge.

Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend raises a very good point—he is tempting me away from what I intended to say. I hope that he will catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and therefore participate in the debate.
It is important for the Minister to understand—he alluded to it in his introduction—that formula rating was originally introduced to deal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South said, with national enterprises. It was introduced to deal with very large publicly owned companies which could not be assessed at a local level.
The Minister is saying—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East will pursue this point also—that we are no longer in that situation. Because of the work of the Minister for Public Transport, we face the prospect of the huge rail network being divided into little pieces, as a result of which it will be much easier to have an assessment of each area. I do not welcome that, because I think that what the Government have done will come back to haunt them. We do not support the breaking up of our railway system, but I do not wish to rehearse the arguments advanced during the passage of the Railways Act 1993.
The break-up of the railway system shows that it is possible to make a proper and effective assessment; an

assessment that is much more just than the current system and an assessment that will result in a much more accurate account of the various parts of British Rail.
With regard to non-domestic rates, at the moment local businesses are paying their money to central Government. It is being paid because of the national system that was devised by the Government—a national system that is still not in place. As we heard in the debate on 13 January this year, the Government are not sure of the precise nature and scheme of the non-domestic rating legislation that will have to be debated in the House again next year. Local non-domestic rates paid by local businesses to the Government constitute a local tax for local services, but there is no local accountability, because the tax is national and not local.
We have seen yet again the Government's multistandards—I was going to say "double standards", but the Government have so many standards when dealing with local authorities and local enterprises—as they have tried to hide the real situation from the House. We call for more time to debate this measure, and to get a clearer picture of the Government's intentions, so that the proposals can be considered much more fully.
The current situation is a negation of democracy. The Government have all the resources—an army of civil servants are assisting the Under-Secretary of State, advising him, tending to his every whim and providing him with all necessary advice. They have had more than four months in which to bring this measure before the House so that we could discuss it calmly and properly, not under threat of guillotine and without the knowledge that in three days' time a new company would take effect.
The House deserves an explanation of why it has taken so long for the order to be brought before us. We also need an explanation of why it is going to take so long to bring the discredited system of formula rating to a close.

Mr. Peter Snape: As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) has said, there is little point in rehearsing the arguments against privatisation that we debated at length during the passage of the Railways Act, which brought about this unhappy situation. The Government proved not to be amenable to listening to reason during the passage of that legislation and there is no reason to suppose that they have become more sensible since then.
Having listened to the Under-Secretary, one can understand my hon. Friend's reference to the battery of loyal and dutiful civil servants. The Under-Secretary is the perfect Minister. My hon. Friend wondered why the Under-Secretary has been in his post for so long. I can answer the question: he is the perfect Minister; he gabbles through prepared briefs without deviating, by one word, from what is written for him. I am sure that the Department of the Environment hopes that he will carry on in his present position for many years.
The Under-Secretary did not give any explanation for the enormous sums that we are being asked to approve in this order. They are not inconsiderable sums by any stretch of the imagination, totalling as they do £209.4 million. The fact that that is money which, in the opinion of most, would be better spent within the railway industry than on the matters that we are debating tonight is amply illustrated by news from the railway industry over the past week or so.


For example, there was the loss of 700 jobs at Derby and the last-ever press release from the Central Transport Users Consultative Committee. The committee chairman, Major-General Lennox Napier, said:
Unless there is a high level of sustained investment in rolling stock and infrastructure, privatisation will not be a success from the passenger's point of view.
I think that we all agree with General Napier. Why are we spending £209.4 million under the terms of this order and why did the Minister—or his civil servants—not provide a comparison so that we could judge the expenditure of £209.4 million? As my hon. Friend and the Minister reminded us, the railway industry has paid rates for a considerable number of years—not, understandably, on stations and signal boxes but on land that it owns, on office blocks, with which I shall deal in a moment, and on other parts of what I shall call the support tail of the railway industry.
There is an easy comparison that the Minister could have drawn had he chosen to do so or if his civil servants had written the brief accordingly. He could have compared the amount being paid in rates this year by all sectors of British Rail with that being demanded from British Rail and Railtrack in the next financial year under the order. The Minister nods his head, but he did not give us the comparison—I do not know whether the figures were prepared for him or whether he chose not to deliver them but I shall read them out.
In the current financial year, which ends on Thursday, all sectors of British Rail are paying a total of £98.1 million in rates but, under the terms of the order, British Rail and Railtrack together will be paying £209.4 million. The Minister for Public Transport shakes his head, but they are the facts and there is no denying or gainsaying them. If he wants to intervene instead of sitting there like a nodding dog, I shall be delighted to allow him to do so.

Mr. Baldry: rose—

Mr. Snape: The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment must have another brief.

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman is labouring under a number of misapprehensions. The figures in the order are exactly the amount that British Rail would have paid if it had remained a nationalised industry. The order simply divides the amount between Railtrack and BR and does so on the basis of the proportion of property. In addition to the property highlighted by the hon. Gentleman, prescribed rating includes such matters as the track bed and other property owned by Railtrack, so the portfolio is rather wider than the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Mr. Snape: I realise that that is the case and I was unaware that I had even implied otherwise. I hope that the Minister is not questioning the two figures. I have ascertained from British Rail and all its constituent sectors exactly what is being paid this year and what will be demanded under the order, and the figures are as I read out. There will be a total increase of 213.5 per cent.

Mr. Baldry: In his desire to comment on privatisation, the hon. Gentleman is confusing rateable values and rates. We are dealing with rateable values, not rates. If the hon. Gentleman asks the wrong question, he of course gets the wrong answer.

Mr. Snape: I am not unaware of the difference between rateable values and rates. I said what I did because I was

surprised that the Minister did not raise the issue in the first place. We are discussing the rateable values of properties owned by BR and Railtrack in the forthcoming financial year. The reason for the enormous disparity in rateable values—I accept the Minister's correction because I mentioned rates rather than rateable values—is the mushrooming bureaucracy which we warned would be a direct and inevitable consequence of privatisation. The Minister looks a bit doubtful while the Minister for Public Transport, who has at least stopped shaking his head, looks shocked.
I have here a copy of British Rail's house magazine Railnews, which has the somewhat optimistic headline "A New Era Dawns". It states:
A new railway was born on April 1st.
Never let it be said that British Rail is always behind the times—its magazine is talking in the past tense two days before we reach the dawning of the new era. In a box to one side but also on the front page a small heading states:
The new railway: your full colour guide to all the changes in the centre pages".
I have extracted the centre pages and I have here details of the new railway. Alas, it is the old railway for which the rateable values are being increased under the order.
The magazine's chart includes a long list of offices that have been opened in the past few months and which form the bulk of the rateable values under the order. For example, in Birmingham the administration tail of various sectors of BR in that part of the world operates from a building called Stanier house in the centre of the city. Under the new railway, as from 1 April, not only is Stanier house to be occupied by no fewer than two train operators or shadow franchises and one Railtrack headquarters and zone but other organisations will also be based in Birmingham directly as a result of privatisation. Two will be at Meridian house in Smallbrook Queensway and one at Quayside tower, although I am not sure where that is in Birmingham. They are the direct result of privatisation and form part of the total rateable values in 1994–95 under the order.
I draw the attention of the House to the right-hand side of the chart. Running the length of the page is the list of offices for the new privatised railway structure in London.

Mr. Baldry: rose—

Mr. Snape: When I have finished this point, the Minister can of course intervene.
That list contains no fewer than 14 buildings which were not listed as being under the control of British Rail or any of its sectors before the nonsense of privatisation on 1 April. Unless the Minister can tell me otherwise, I presume that they, too, will form part of the burden under the order.

Mr. Baldry: I hate to spoil the hon. Gentleman's speech, because he is obviously enjoying himself. The truth is that the list of offices to which he referred is nothing to do with the order because, being offices, they are conventionally assessed and do not come under the prescribed rating. The prescribed rating is to cover those aspects of British Rail's estate, such as the track bed, signalling and other equipment which, since before nationalisation in 1945, it has always been accepted were too difficult to assess under conventional assessment. The list of offices that the hon. Gentleman read out in great fun are conventionally assessed and are not part of the order. I hate to destroy his point.

Mr. Snape: May I ask the Minister another question? Exactly which parts of railway-owned property are covered under the terms of the order? Will he accept that, traditionally, stations and signal boxes are not covered? I and the House should have great difficulty in believing that we could reach a total rateable value of £209.4 million based only on the 11,500 miles of track and the signals—not the signalling, because I have already said that signal boxes are outwith the terms of the order—that British Rail currently has. If the Minister can prove to the House that none of the buildings that have fallen into British Rail's ownership or leasing arrangements in the past year is covered by the order, I shall of course have to accept it, but it is incumbent on him to prove that point. People outside the House who follow our debates with some interest will have great difficulty in believing that such is the case.

Mr. Cryer: Would it not have helped the users of the statutory instrument if what the Minister is saying had been set out in the explanatory note? It would have shown that he had some confidence in his assertion and it would have helped the users. The explanatory note is brief to the point of obscurity. As the order will apply to a new organisation in a supposed new era which, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, is an era of potential disaster, the participants should at least be informed that the order is in fact a Titanic.

Mr. Snape: I thought—seemingly erroneously, from what the Minister has said—that
'English railway hereditament' means a hereditament described in regulation 2 of the Non-domestic Rating (Railways) and Central Rating Lists (Amendment) Regulations 1994",
to quote from the new part VI that is to be added to the Railways (Rateable Values) Order 1989. It was always my understanding that that regulation applied to office blocks under the control of, or owned by, or leased by, British Rail, rather than purely the railway installations, which the Under-Secretary has outlined. If I am wrong, I am obviously prepared to concede that.

Mr. Baldry: As I have already made clear, the offices that the hon. Gentleman has listed are conventionally assessed, they have always been conventionally assessed and shall continue to be so. The order is repeating what has happened year on year for a good number of years over the prescribed rating of certain estate belonging to British Rail. The property covered is explained, if I may respond also to the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), in the attendant regulations SI 834 of 1994.
To answer another point made by the hon. Member for West Bromich, East (Mr. S nape), freight depots are included in the prescribed rating system. It is set out in some detail in the statutory instrument. That is nothing new. It will not come as a surprise to anyone at BR or associated with BR because it is a pattern which has occurred year on year for a long time. All that is happening in the current year is the division of that sum between Railtrack and BR. That is all that the order does, no more and no less. As I said, it turns on a very narrow compass.

Mr. Snape: I accept what the Under-Secretary says and the "narrow compass" as he has defined it. I find it amazing, to say the least, that a figure has been provided for which I can find no comparable figure in the existing financial year. I hope that, in his winding-up speech, he will explain to my satisfaction, and that of the House, that apparent disparity.
I shall conclude as I began. The order may well be fairly narrow, but in the long term, the railway customers will pay for the costs of the futile privatisation. We shall see many more debates on orders such as the one before us and, of concern to the Minister for Public Transport, on legislation emanating from his Department over the next 12 months.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The Minister introduced the order by saying that it was a traditional method of assessing rates. I am familiar with the system of assessing rates because, unlike him, I have been a director of a private railway company and I was the chairman of the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway Preservation Society. It was one of the pioneering railway preservation societies, it was formed in 1962 and it negotiated a separate rating and valuation system for five miles of track—as distinct from British Rail. It was one of the first railway societies to do that following nationalisation in 1948 and the compulsory purchase legislation in 1922.
Before that, there were 140 separate railway companies in the country. The order does not recognise the fact that the aim of the Government is to take us back to before that 1922 compulsory amalgamation of the railways, which created the four big railways—London and North Eastern Railways, Great Western railways, Southern Railways and London, Midland and Scottish railways, which were subsequently nationalised. I am fully aware that valuation of the track bed, the track and the signalling equipment has been done in the past and that the valuation normally included operating facilities as well. No doubt the order does that, too.
It would have helped the user of the statutory instrument—which costs 65p for a single sheet—if the explanatory note had not merely referred to other parts of legislation, but had put in the whole background. Various Government Departments imagine that every citizen—the order applies to every citizen—is governed by legislation. When people travel on the train, they will be governed by the order, indirectly and perhaps remotely, so why should not an interested citizen have access to legislation? Why do not the Government include an explanatory note which covers all the parts of the delegated legislation to which the order refers, instead of referring to the original Railways (Rateable Values) Order 1989, as though anybody knows what that order does, except if they working in the Department, specialise in that section and have it coming out of their ears? The Minister did not know what the Railways (Rateable Values) Order 1989 did until somebody told him. He is no different from any other citizen, so why not provide explanatory notes that explain the backgrounds?
The distribution of Hansard, if people are interested, is not very wide; it costs too much. The information from Parliament, of which, unfortunately, the Government are in control, is now so costly that ordinary people simply cannot get hold of it. It is 65p for a sheet of paper and if an order runs to two or three sheets, they can cost £2, £3, £4 or £5. For example, the Register of Members' Interests for the House of Commons costs £20, so ordinary citizens cannot possibly find out what their Member of Parliament is up to and whether they are moonlighting and lining their pockets, let alone deal with rating and valuation. I make a plea for a better explanatory note.
The statutory instrument is not defective. It is quite true that it falls within the narrow terms of the legislation. As Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I can tell the House that if the instrument had been defective, the Committee would have reported it as such. Whether that report would have been in time for the debate is a matter of conjecture because the business managers of the House do not always trouble themselves to take into account the Committee's reports.
As I said earlier, the order is based on having a national railway network, but that is not the point of the legislation that governs it. The point is that we should not have a national network owned by a central body and providing rate revenue on a rateable valuation nationally. The network will be broken into various organisations which will take over sections of track that are to be owned by Railtrack plc, as set out in the order. What concerns me is the basis on which the charge to the franchisee will be made in incorporating the rate payments which will have to be made—approximately £200 million. If each section of track were assessed separately, it would obviously reflect the value of that track.
Let us take, for example, the east coast main line which has been recently electrified. The Yorkshire Post, as one would expect, takes a considerable interest in that main line between Leeds and London and further north through York to Aberdeen and Edinburgh. The electrification of the line presumably means that it will carry a larger proportion of the rateable value laid down in the order and therefore a larger proportion of the amount of money that Railtrack will have to hand over as rate revenue to the Treasury because of the national assessment. Is that part of the charge that Railtrack is proposing? It would make the operation by a franchising operator virtually unprofitable.
Take, for example, another section of line that is not yet electrified, but is in the process of being electrified—the line between Leeds and Bradford, through Airedale to Skipton and Ilkley. That will surely attract a higher charge by Railtrack plc because it will be regarded as a more attractive piece of real estate. It will, therefore, be subject to a higher yield of revenue than a single branch line with relatively low standards of maintenance with, perhaps, dodgy fencing and bridges with inadequate coping stones. The section of line from Leeds to Bradford—

Dr. John Marek: rose—

Mr. Cryer: May I finish the point? The Leeds to Bradford and Airedale branch line has just been provided with new fencing and new bridge parapets for protection, because the 25 kV overhead electrification has been installed and, no doubt, some of the track work has been improved. I should have thought that that would reflect a higher charge.
The Minister may regard that as extremely inconvenient, but it will happen because, instead of dealing with a national network, we shall be dealing with many smaller networks operating within the framework of the 11,000 route miles as a whole. That will give rise to complications in the operation of the order. One of my concerns is the fact that, because it is based on legislation for a national system, the order does not provide the breakdown.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is right that we shall be dealing not with a national integrated network but with many different routes throughout the country with little connection between them. However, I believe that my hon.

Friend is wrong that Railtrack will apply a system of charges such as he describes. I suspect that Railtrack will succumb to Government pressure and apply charges in the best possible way to franchise out the various lines. If the lines can be franchised more easily, the charges will reflect that fact, and be higher or lower according to that main criterion, rather than according to any of the sensible criteria to which my hon. Friend seeks to draw the attention of the House.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, but the truth is that we simply do not know. The opaqueness of the explanatory note for the order is not exceptional. Government Departments have a certain style—and the orders are always signed by Ministers; it is they, not civil servants, who take the responsibility. Departments seem to consider that one of their aims in life is to issue opaque explanatory notes for equally opaque statutory instruments, so that the general public cannot understand either the instrument or the explanatory note. This order is no exception to that rule.
Whatever the basis of the charges, the rating and valuation is likely to be a component. The Government will not like it, but there may be some cross-subsidisation between one section of the railway and another. One section will be more attractive in terms of route mileage, so the charges may not be worked out using a strict and accurate accounting system. We simply do not know.
If that large charge of £200 million is drawn out of the railway network when it is being broken up, at a time of much greater administrative costs, services will inevitably suffer. If I am right that the rateable valuation allotted to modernised sections of railways is higher and will therefore result in higher charges, potential franchisees will not be able to afford Railtrack's charges. If they pay those high charges they certainly will not be able to obtain the new rolling stock necessary, for example, on the Airedale and Leeds-Bradford lines.
The Minister for Public Transport, having lost the Menwith Hill station the other week, can now consider the Leeds-Bradford route mileage to find out whether, before we get into the mess of privatisation, we can secure an order for new rolling stock on that section of newly electrified railway. The charges may be levied on the sort of basis that I have suggested—but the Minister will not know about that, because he is not really concerned about the charges. He is concerned only with getting the order through. Then, by hook or by crook, the revenue will come in as laid down on the valuation assessed under the order. The Minister will not be able to tell us what will happen, because he does not know. Frankly, I suspect that, provided that the revenue comes in, he does not much care.

Mr. Snape: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the likely outcome of the electrification of the Aire valley line? In the short term, the passenger transport authority will have to pick up the additional bill, but if the rateable value is increased once the overhead electrification masts are replaced and switched on, that will make it less likely that new rolling stock can or will be introduced.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. We have been battling to try to persuade the Government to incorporate expenditure on new rolling stock for the new electrified railway. In view of the massively increased administrative charges under privatisation and the difficulties that will occur in any event, the Government might have taken the


expenditure into account in assessing the rateable values, and reduced the totals significantly so that the charges would represent an encouragement to provide services rather than a disincentive. I fear that there will be disincentives. My fears are not based on a belief that privatisation will be a success; privatisation is a potential disaster, as I said when the legislation was before the House—but I do not want to go over those arguments again.
I am concerned about the passengers, because it is they who will pay the revenue stipulated in the order. The passengers and freight users will be the means of providing that income. When starting on this disastrous course, the Government might have at least considered the passengers and freight users, so that we could expand the use of the railway network rather than diminish it. Under the order, I fear that it will be diminished.
Although there are emergency provisions in the legislation, if a service is diminished because a franchisee goes into liquidation and cannot sustain it, the rate revenue will be required whatever the circumstances. That is a grave fault.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: My hon. Friend mentioned Menwith Hill station. I understand that that is a GCHQ listening station, so can my hon. Friend explain why British Rail is being charged on its rateable value?

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. Unfortunately, the Minister for Public Transport mistakenly thought that Menwith Hill station, which is a spy listening station, was a British Rail station. I mention that by way of explanation in response to my hon. Friend's intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker. When the Minister asked British Rail where the station was it could not tell him, for the simple reason that Menwith Hill is a 250-acre site on the moors above Harrogate, with 21 radomes. It would have made a most unusual railway station. I shall not go any further down that road, Madam Deputy Speaker, having clarified the question. Unfortunately, the mistake was due to the lack of knowledge—some may say ignorance—of the Department of Transport and of the Minister for Public Transport.
The debate has been useful and the fact that it has not gone to its full length should not detract from that. Its brevity is partly due to the narrowness of the debate and the minimal amount of information conveyed in the order, which simply refers to the current state of legislation. If British Rail is broken up—I hope that, because no franchisees come forward, that will not happen—the

Government will have to examine their method of applying the rateable value, because it will no longer be possible to apply it nationally.
Because the arrangements will apply in a completely new context, I urge the Minister to provide a better explanation. There should be an explanatory note on every statutory instrument, to enable the user to understand the background as a whole. Understanding should not depend on possessing all the other relevant statutory instruments. Although no consolidation is required in this instance, statutory instruments often span a wide range of activity. It is unfair that people should have to buy three, four, five or six statutory instruments to obtain a full explanation and full knowledge of the position.
That is unfair because, as with every other activity, the Government impose a charge of such magnitude to cover services provided. People are denied the right to information, but every week cartons and cartons of discarded current public documents are taken away from this place for shredding. If the statutory instruments were given away for nothing the Government might have a case—but as they charge so much for them, the explanatory notes should give as full an account as possible.

Mr. Baldry: The Opposition have tried very hard, and on occasion quite humorously, to make this order appear much more complicated than it really is. I believe that everyone now accepts that we are simply dividing 100 per cent. of what would have been paid by British Rail, if it had remained a nationalised industry, between two bodies—the British Railways Board and Railtrack. The split represents the rateable value of the prescribed property occupied by both bodies. The reason for the impossibility of bringing the order before the House earlier is that care needed to be taken in arriving at proportions for division of the relevant property. But the same property as last year stays in the formula rating; nothing changes there. The rate bill stays exactly the same as would have been the case if British Rail had remained a nationalised industry; nothing changes there. The effect on the money going to local authorities is exactly the same; nothing changes there. And the amount of money that the railways have to pay out is exactly the same as would otherwise have been the case; nothing changes there, and any suggestion that more money is being extracted from the railways is complete bunkum.
The order simply adds one ratepayer. It does no more and no less, and on that basis I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Railways (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th March, be approved.

Northern Ireland Affairs

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Madam Speaker has decided that all the amendments on the Order Paper are selected for debate but that any that are to be moved will be moved formally at the conclusion of the debate.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I beg to move,
That Mr. James Cran, Mr. Charles Hendry, Mr. Andrew Hunter, Sir James Kilfedder, Mr. Eddie McGrady, Mr. Ken Maginnis, Mr. Jim Marshall, Mr. Peter Robinson, Mr. Clive Soley, Mr. Richard Spring, Mr. John D. Taylor, Mr. David Wilshire and Mr. Mark Wolfson be members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Members who serve on the Committee of Selection. We may disagree from time to time, and we often have to debate issues, but we never descend into matters of personality, and we always maintain a sense of humour. I believe, indeed. that most members of the Committee would agree that it is a pleasant one on which to serve.
The setting up of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee was always going to be a difficult matter. I do not think that any hon. Member in any part of the House would disagree with that assertion. I realise that it was impossible to accede to the requests of all the political parties involved. The minority parties are normally entitled to one place on departmental Select Committees, but there are exceptions. On the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs a Scottish nationalist Member takes one of the Labour party's places, and on the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs Plaid Cymru does likewise. The situation in Northern Ireland is different, and it is very complex. Northern Ireland has 17 constituencies. The seats are held by Members from four different political parties, none of the three major political parties on the mainland being represented. Herein lies the crux of the problem.
The unique character of Northern Ireland's parliamentary representation meant that the usual formula would have to be adapted. The Committee of Selection took into account the views of the Committee on Procedure, which had looked at the issue twice in recent years. In its 1990 report on the working of the Select Committee system, the Procedure Committee envisaged that a future Northern Ireland Select Committee would consist of 16 members, and the suggested break-down was eight Conservatives, three Labour members, two Ulster Unionist representatives, one Democratic Unionist, one Popular Unionist, and one representative of the Social Democratic and Labour party. This was revised by the Procedure Committee in December last year, when a membership of 13 or 15, which the Committee thought would be procedurally acceptable, was suggested. It was also observed—and this is a very important point—that it seemed sensible that all Northern Ireland political parties represented in the House should be represented on the Committee.
It has always been the case that the Government of the day can expect to have a majority on Committees of the House. That is not in dispute. On 9 March 1994, the House, by 324 votes to 221, approved the setting up of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and decided that it should consist of 13 members. The Committee of Selection

was then faced with the task of setting up a Committee that would give all Northern Ireland parties representation, would accommodate the Opposition and would guarantee a Government majority—not an easy task. The difficulties involved in meeting all these criteria must be readily apparent to all hon. Members.

Mr. Don Dixon: If the Government wanted to have a majority on the Northern Ireland Select Committee, as they have on the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and every departmental Select Committee, they could have implemented the Procedure Committee's recommendation that there should be seven Government members, two Labour members and one from each of the political parties in Northern Ireland. That would have been the simplest way of dealing with the matter. Why did the Procedure Committee decide that the Select Committee should have 13 members rather than 16, with the Labour party's representation reduced by one but the Ulster Unionists' representation remaining at two?

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I shall, in fairness, deal with those points in due course. The hon. Gentleman's basic point is that the Labour party should have three seats rather than two.
The composition that we decided recognises closely the Procedure Committee's original proposal, which was that the membership should consist of six Conservatives, two Labour representatives, two Ulster Unionists, one Democratic Unionist, one Popular Unionist and one SDLP representative. In 1990, the Procedure Committee recommended a Committee of 16. On that basis, the Conservatives have lost two places, having come down from eight to six, and the Labour party has lost one seat, having come down from three to two.
To ensure full participation by all the Northern Ireland parties, the Government were prepared to allow their majority to be maintained by the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder). Although there is no formal link between the Popular Unionist party and the Conservative party—the hon. Member for North Down certainly does not take the Conservative whip—the hon. Gentleman is a consistent supporter of the Government in the Division Lobbies. I suggest, in fairness, that if the boot had been on the other foot—if there had been a Labour Government and a Labour Chairman of the Committee of Selection—the Labour party would probably have taken six seats and that one seat would have gone to the SDLP, which, while it does not take the Labour whip, has a link with the Labour party and agrees with it in respect of many things. I believe that the Labour party would indeed have relied on the SDLP for its majority. It goes without saying that there can be no guarantee that the hon. Member for North Down, or, for that matter, any other hon. Member, will always support the Conservative side of the Committee.
In reply to the other point that the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) put to me, I have to say that we considered it right that the Ulster Unionists should have two places on the Committee. After all, it has more than twice as many seats as any other Northern Ireland party, and it has just over half of the Northern Ireland seats in the House. This is a Northern Ireland Committee, and it would be nonsensical to fill it with members from the mainland. The whole purpose of setting it up is to bring Northern Ireland Members together to discuss issues that are of


concern to their constituents. Surely it is logical and reasonable for the Ulster Unionists to expect greater representation than the other Northern Ireland parties.

Mr. Dixon: How, then, does the hon. Gentleman justify the fact that the Government have a majority on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs even though there are very few Scottish Conservative Members and a majority on the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs even though there are very few Welsh Conservative Members?

Sir Fergus Montgomery: The hon. Member has been in the House a long time and knows as well as I do that the Government have a majority. I do not know whether he was a Member of Parliament between 1974 and 1979, when the Labour Government lost their majority in the House. The then Opposition—the Conservative party—always accepted that the Government must have a majority on Committees. That has always been accepted.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: In view of the point that the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) has just put to my hon. Friend, I must say that the Northern Ireland situation is entirely different from those in Scotland and in Wales. We know that it is a very delicate and difficult political decision. There are exceptional problems in that area and one feels desperately sorry for the people who live there. Therefore, the Committee of Selection had to look at Northern Ireland in a different light compared with Wales and Scotland. That should deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon).

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not argue that our nominations are a statistically accurate reflection of the composition of the House. It is clear that the Labour party would ordinarily expect to have more than two places. However, I had hoped that Labour, like the Government, would be prepared to accept less in order to ensure that every Northern Ireland party was represented on the Committee because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) pointed out, special factors apply to Northern Ireland.
Earlier today, we had a debate on the business of the House, when the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) was rather unfair in his criticism of the Committee of Selection. The House made its decision on 9 March. I had hoped to set up the Committee on 16 March. The other Northern Ireland parties had all let me have their nominations; I did not have to ask for them. That is the usual procedure. However, there were no nominations from the SDLP.
The Clerk of the Committee, who was very efficient and hard working, spent the whole of the morning trying to find an SDLP Member. As we had no nominations from the SDLP, I deferred the setting up of the Committee for a full week. We set up the Committee in the following week when we had the nominations from the SDLP. There was no intention on our part of being unfair to the SDLP; we wanted to ensure that it had representation on the Committee.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I take cognisance of the veracity of the hon. Gentleman's statement. Nevertheless, it does not alter the fact that my party was not contacted about the proposed meeting or the

subsequent meeting. I made contact because I had heard rumours in the House that there was a meeting taking place. There were no lines of communication. There was no direct contact with me or with any other members of my party to enable us to be aware that nominations were required for a meeting on a particular date. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that as a genuine expression of the truthful position.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: There is an hon. Member who represents the minority parties in the House—he does that extremely well. When the Committee was set up, he relied on the parties concerned to get their nominations to him. That happened. The nominations came to the hon. Member or to me. All the other Northern Ireland parties got their names in on time. Because we wanted to be scrupulously fair, the meeting deferred for one week the setting up of the Committee so that the SDLP could be represented. I hope that the hon. Member for South Down understands that.

Mr. Dixon: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for continuing to intervene. Is it not a fact that at the first meeting of the Committee of Selection to set up the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs the only thing that we decided was the composition of the Committee—the number of members on the Committee from each political party? After we decided that, the meeting was adjourned for a week to allow names to come in. The SDLP could not put in any names because it did not know who would be on the Committee. Indeed, the Labour party did not put in any names because we were still arguing about whether we should have three or two positions on the Committee. At the first meeting we talked about only the composition; we talked about the names at the second meeting. There was no need to look for SDLP Members—they would not be represented because we had not decided on the representation.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: At the beginning of my remarks, I said what a pleasant Committee the Committee of Selection was. Perhaps I should rethink what I said in the light of all the hon. Gentleman's interventions. I must refresh his memory. The reason why the setting up of the Committee was deferred for one week was to get the names in. That is true.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I shall refresh my memory. I believe that the week that the hon. Gentleman is referring to was the week of the last Northern Ireland Question Time, during which my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and I were present. If my memory needs further refreshing and it was the previous week, that was the week that we debated the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act when my hon. Friends the Members for South Down and for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and I were present. At least we should put that on the record, and the record will show that that is right.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. When I was explaining the procedures of the Committee, all I was trying to say was that it is up to the parties concerned to get their nominations in on time. As the House had decided that we should set up the Committee, it is funny that the other Northern Ireland parties understood that and got their names in.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am not sure whether this hard-working hon. Member from another party looks after Northern Ireland and the minority parties because I have been consulted three times in the whole Parliament by that hon. Member. That should be put on the record as well.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: A lot of things are being put on the record tonight. All I can say is that, in all the speeches that I have made in the House, I have never had so many interruptions.
There are five amendments on the Order Paper. If all five of them are carried, the Labour party would have seven members on a Committee of 13.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Hear, hear.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: The hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear". It may be very pleasant for the Labour party. Certainly it would not be pleasant for the Tory members who will be kicked off the Committee if the amendments are carried, and it would not be fair on the Northern Ireland members. We should be happy to see more Northern Ireland members on the Committee because the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs is there to look after their interests. I simply say to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg), whom I always find agreeable, that when he is asking for more members, he should remember that this Committee is for the needy, not the greedy.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has expressed an important principle—that there is a strong case for having more Northern Ireland members on the Committee. Would he extend that principle to Scotland and Wales? Can we have more Scots on the Scottish Affairs Committee?

Sir Fergus Montgomery: If the hon. Gentleman checks, he will find that there are 11 members on both the Scottish Affairs Committee and the Welsh Affairs Committee. On the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, we have made a great concession—there are 13 members because Northern Ireland is represented by four separate political parties. The number of members of the Committee was increased to 13 to meet that.

Sir Michael Neubert: Would it be true to say that the intervention of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) overlooked the crucial fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) mentioned earlier that the two major mainland parties will not be represented in Northern Ireland and that is what makes it a different Committee from the Scottish Affairs Committee and the Welsh Affairs Committee?

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I agree with my hon. Friend, who is a valuable member of the Committee of Selection. He is right that that is one of the difficulties that we had to bear in mind all the way through.
We thought of all sorts of different arrangements for the composition of the Committee. In fairness, most people would agree that, no matter what we decided, there would still be aggrieved hon. Members in the House. Several Tory Members desperately wanted to serve on the Committee, but we could not place them on it because we had only six places to fill. We voted on the six hon.

Members whom we thought were the best choices. That was a great disappointment to some of my hon. Friends, and some of them have had harsh words to say to me since then.
Given the peculiar circumstances, the composition that we eventually presented to the House is as fair as it was possible to be to all the parties involved. Therefore, I hope that the House will agree with and accept our nominations.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move the amendment—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Speaker has instructed that the amendments will be taken formally at the end of the debate but it is perfectly in order for hon. Members to discuss them now.

Mr. McNamara: At the end of the debate, I shall beg to move the amendments standing in my name and that of my hon. Friends.
Let I say at the outset to the Government Members whom we are suggesting should be taken from the Committee that we do not attack them in any personal way. Everybody admires their sterling qualities—the problem is that they are overshadowed by the sterling qualities of my hon. Friends, whose names we have proposed.
The House will have noted that we have not put up a candidate against the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). That is because he is a class apart—from which stream, of course, is a question for the House to judge. However, it is not true, as has been maliciously suggested, that he is regarded by the Opposition as being a member of the Ulster Unionist party. That cannot be true, as he sits on the Government Benches. However, he is the chairman of the Northern Ireland Back-Bench committee and it seems correct not to oppose his membership of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee.
The House will have noted that the composition of a Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee is not merely a procedural parliamentary issue. It has significant political consequences. Until recently, the Government were prepared to acknowledge the wider implications of a Northern Ireland Select Committee, and accepted the need for cross-party support for it. The Northern Ireland Select Committee is not viewed in Ireland simply as an administrative issue—it has a profound symbolic significance.
A Northern Ireland Select Committee is an integral part of the Ulster Unionist party's political agenda and is seen as an integrationist measure. The fact that the Government now support the new composition is seen as evidence of their own political inclination, and belies the Government's self-proclaimed aspiration to be merely a facilitator to the agreement.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why having one Select Committee looking after most of the issues affecting Northern Ireland is integrationist when having six is not?

Mr. McNamara: Had the hon. Gentleman graced our earlier debates, he would have known of the symbolic importance which is attached to the Select Committee, in particular by the Ulster Unionist party. It is part and parcel of its agenda, which includes altering the legislative procedures in the House and having a devolved assembly


if it can have one without a broad Irish dimension. It is part and parcel of a political party's agenda, and of what was regarded as being strand 1 of the talks—

Mr. Ken Maginnis: rose—

Mr. McNamara: May I answer the question, and then I will be only too delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman? It is part and parcel of strand I of the talks which are now beginning to be unravelled.

Mr. Maginnis: Was it the hon. Gentleman's political philosophy that it was his task and that of his party to frustrate the wishes of the largest political party in Northern Ireland and merely to act as a spokesperson for one of the smaller political parties? There appears to be little logic in his argument that, because the Ulster Unionist party believes that there should be accountable democracy, he should set out almost single-handed to defeat it.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman flatters me if he thinks I have such power.
It is the policy of the British Labour party to work for a united Ireland by consent. It follows that any measure that is seen as being integrationist in any way or as tightening the bands between this island and Northern Ireland is something to which we are opposed. It is because of that—

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): rose—

Mr. McNamara: Could I finish my point? We oppose it because we regard it as an integrationist measure.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) asked a good question, to which he has not so far had anything that amounts to an answer. How can it be more integrationist to have a single Select Committee focused on the Northern Ireland Office than to leave the affairs of that office to be treated as part and parcel of the activities of the Agriculture Committee, the Environment Committee, the National Heritage Committee, the Transport Committee and dozens of others? That appears to stand reasoned argument on its head.

Mr. McNamara: If the right hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the symbolic significance in Northern Ireland of the establishment of the Select Committee, he should not be establishing it. That is why it is being fought for. It is not being fought for to provide better administration for the Northern Ireland Office. The Leader of the House himself has said that half a dozen Committees are quite capable of doing it any way. All that the Government are doing with this Committee is increasing bureaucracy, and I thought that the Government were against increasing bureaucracy.

Mr. Bowden: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman gets truly launched, may I point out that we are concerned with the composition of the Committee and not its functions or whether or not it should be set up?

Mr. McNamara: I agree with you entirely, Madam Deputy Speaker. The points are being put to me by hon. Members, and I am trying to facilitate the debate.

Mr. Bowden: It is important that the hon. Members whom we are to put on the Committee tonight—because as you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is what we are discussing—are more than a symbol. Surely they must form an important working group of hon. Members looking in detail at some of the serious problems which Northern Ireland is facing. Is it not a mistake just to call the Committee symbolic, as it is much deeper and more important than that?

Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that it is. The Ulster Unionist party, in a reference that it made to the press in a briefing paper, spoke of the symbolic importance of the Committee, and of restoring responsibility back to Stormont. Those are not my words but those of the UUP. That is the significance of the Committee and that is why its composition happens to be of particular importance.
The Government have claimed that they have no selfish strategic or economic interest in Ireland, but they have now allowed a selfish, petty and short-term party interest to dictate their policy towards the establishment, and therefore towards the composition, of a Northern Ireland Select Committee. The political dimension in the composition of the Committee is clear for all to see.
The negative impact of the creation of the Committee is compounded by its proposed composition. The Government are still simply replicating majority rule. Indeed, the Ulster Unionist party said in a briefing paper that the Northern Ireland Select Committee is already harking back to the Stormont regime. The population of Northern Ireland is now split roughly 43 per cent. to 57 per cent., and yet there has been no attempt to ensure that the minority community has a fair representation on the proposed Committee.
The Social Democratic and Labour party received twice as many votes as the Democratic Unionist party and 10 times as many as the Ulster Popular Unionist party, and yet it is to receive exactly the same representation on the Committee. A party that stands in just one constituency and receives just 2.5 per cent. of the votes cast in Northern Ireland—the UPUP—is to get one place on the Select Committee, and possibly even the chairmanship. That gives a completely new definition of the word popular. The SDLP has been allocated one place on the Select Committee, despite receiving 23.5 per cent. of the votes cast in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: rose—

Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect, there is only one and a half hours for the debate. The hon. Gentleman may wish to speak, and the Northern Ireland parties probably wish to contribute. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: rose—

Mr. McNamara: I am prepared to give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: The hon. Gentleman complains bitterly that the hon. Member for North Down(Sir J. Kilfedder) has been given a place. May I remind him that the Government could have taken seven places, and


only took six? The hon. Member for North Down was given a place from the Government side, which did not affect the placing of Opposition Members.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman's point would lead me to an argument that I shall advance later.
The Leader of the House said that the Government
should expect to be able to command a majority"—[Official Report, 9 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 345.]
on the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, yet they have accepted that there should be only six Conservative places on the Committee. That is because they consider the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) to be an honorary Tory. That may be an unfair thing to say about the hon. Gentleman, but, as the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) said, the Government have conceded that the circumstances of Northern Ireland are peculiar, which is what we argued to the Secretary of State.
We suggested that both the Government and the Opposition should be prepared to surrender seats to the Northern Ireland parties. We proposed that the Government should have five seats and the Labour party four, with the remainder divided between the Northern Ireland parties. Instead, the Government allotted only two seats to the Labour party, despite the fact that it has 270 Members in the House. That is an outrageous distortion of the principle of proportionality on which the Select Committee system is supposed to be based. That gross misrepresentation cannot possibly be justified, even though the Select Committee on Selection agreed that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) should press for three Labour members, despite our first proposal to the Secretary of State.
In Northern Ireland, such gerrymandering serves as a reminder of past abuses of power. The decision to allocate the seats in such a biased way damages the Government's reputation in Ireland and thereby damages the peace process. It is vital that, in any future inter-party talks, there is no question of the Government entering discussions with a hidden agenda, which the composition of the Committee implies that they have.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has repeatedly claimed that the Government have no blueprint or master plan, yet the decision to establish the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee with such an unrepresen-tative composition casts serious doubts over that assertion. Many have been left with the suspicion that the Government's squalid deal with the Ulster Unionist party has meant a series of concessions to its integrationist agenda, including changes in legislative procedures and the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee.
The biased composition of that Committee aggravates the matter still further because it means that the Conservative and Unionist party and Ulster Unionist party will have an overwhelming majority of 10 to three. Yet the Government had pledged that there would be no return to majoritarian institutions in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the Secretary of State said in speech on 20 January:
there can be no going back to a system which has the allegiance of, and is operated by, only one part of the community.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman has just made me a Tory.

Mr. McNamara: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's unhappiness about such a description, but it would be fair to say that, on most matters regarding

Northern Ireland, he would tend to support the Unionist and Conservative and Unionist position rather, than that of the Opposition. However, I am prepared, in the interests of fairness, to make it a majority of nine to four.
Such a cynical short-term policy as the Government have adopted represents a betrayal of the people of these islands. In Britain and Ireland, the overwhelming majority long for a political settlement that will bring peace to these islands. That is not helped by the composition of the new Select Committee.
Such a political settlement must inevitably include some form of devolved power-sharing assembly to govern Northern Ireland and the decision to grant the UUP the Select Committee reduces still further any possibility of agreement on a devolved assembly with a broad Irish dimension.
The Ulster Unionists have always managed to secure a large measure of their integrationist agenda. As a result, there has been no incentive for them to compromise and accept a form of devolved Government, with adequate recognition of national rights and aspirations. A devolved assembly in Northern Assembly should establish committees to monitor the government of Northern Ireland. That should not be done by a Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee at Westminster dominated by the Conservative and Unionist alliance. Those are reasons why we are concerned about the composition of the Committee.
I know that the fact that we have tabled five amendments has caused concern to Conservative Members, no more so than to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, who is the Chairman of the Selection Committee. He is terribly afraid that, if all the amendments were carried, the Conservative party would be left with only the hon. Member for Basingstoke on the Committee. Let me assure him that once we have carried the first two amendments, we shall cease to push for any more.

Mr. Bob Dunn: On behalf of the whole House, I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee on Selection, my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery), for his contribution to the debate.
It is important to remind ourselves why we are here and of the purpose that led us here. We are here to appoint Members to the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee. Our duty is to respond to resolutions and votes of the House. First, I should like to place on record, as is the fashion, that the Government by convention and precedent always have a majority of seats on Select Committees. Secondly, the House voted that the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee should have 13 members. Thirdly, the Select Committee on Procedure, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) also recommended that all Northern Ireland parties should be represented on the Select Committee.
The Selection Committee had to try, therefore, to reconcile two competing tensions. We had to accom-modate a Government majority in the Committee of 13 members and to accommodate all the parties represented in Ulster. That would pose a difficulty for the Government if they stuck with the concept of a majority. For that reason and that reason alone, the Selection Committee decided to give up one of the Government's places on the Select Committee to the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J.


Kilfedder), thereby allowing the Selection Committee to accommodate the recommendation that all parties should be represented on the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee.
I became slightly confused by the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on the concept of representation by proportion of population and membership of this House. After all, many parties stand for election to the United Kingdom Parliament and do not win seats. The logic of his argument is that those people who vote for parties that are not represented in the House should, by some process of osmosis, be represented on Select Committees. We can appoint only Members of this House to Select Committees. We have no power to do anything else. The way in which our recommendation has accommodated all the parties in Northern Ireland is the right way forward.
It is not for us to argue the pros and cons of a Select Committee for Northern Ireland. The House has voted for it. In the same way, I presume that the House voted for Select Committees for Wales and for Scotland. Equally, I could argue that my county of Kent, which is represented by 16 Members, should have a Select Committee. I do not intend to do so; it would not be wise or sensible. As Kentish Members we can make a major contribution to the work of the Conservative party. The logic of the argument of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has to stop somewhere, and it must stop here tonight.
The important point is that the Selection Committee is abiding by a requirement of the House. Hon. Members should, therefore, think carefully before voting for the amendments that have been tabled by the official Opposition. They would destroy the work of the Selection Committee, which is so ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and to clarify one or two misunderstandings. In the light of the comment by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on the 53 per cent. to 47 per cent. division of Northern Ireland's population, I was perhaps fortunate to be told this morning that two people from Northern Ireland told the papal nuncio in Dublin that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and I were their pastors. I make it abundantly plain that in this House we represent a broad cross-section of the people in Northern Ireland, not the sectarian head count that has been set forth here tonight. We represent the constituents who sent us here.
I also happen to be one of the few Northern Ireland Members who have served consistently on a Select Committee of the House. Although we did our best to include Northern Ireland, we could do it only on occasions. Other things had to be done. To criticise the setting up of a Select Committee for Northern Ireland on the ground that there are six already and it is an integrationist approach, fails to recognise that the Members whom we appoint tonight to that Select Committee will have the task of scrutinising intimately the Northern Ireland Office, which will remain, irrespective of what happens in a devolutionary settlement in Northern Ireland.
In that context, I have been perplexed about why this elongated debate is taking place. I remember only two other occasions when the membership of a Select Committee necessitated a Division. Speaking for the Ulster Unionist party, when we found out that there were so many seats on other Select Committees for Members from Northern Ireland we could have put up four names, but we put up two names to allow the other parties in Northern Ireland to be represented. In the broader pattern of Select Committees, Northern Ireland parties have been under-represented as a result of the failure of parties to put forward representatives. Therefore, I welcome the fact that a Committee that is to monitor—scrutinize—the Northern Ireland Office will have a broad cross-section of members from Northern Ireland.
Perhaps it will be worth while, since other hon. Members have been refreshing memories, if I put on record the fact that although the Select Committee system is reputed to have taken its inspiration from the American Congress, Lord Glenamara recalls in his book, "Whip to Wilson" that Lord Wilson advocated such an idea in the 1960s. It is fascinating that Labour Front-Bench Members are using delaying tactics to prevent it from being set up now.
It is also worth remembering that it was under the Labour Administrations of Lords Wilson, Callaghan and Foot that the system was developed, before being brought to fruition in 1979 under Lord St. John of Fawsley, then Leader of the House in the new Conservative Government.
When we bear in mind the fact that, in 1970, the Labour party demonstrated a clear understanding of the need for an accountable democracy, there seems to have been some change in pattern. Admittedly, that Administration were kept in power by the Ulster Unionist party and colleagues, who supported them—you will recognise this sentence by now, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
so long as they governed in the best interests of the United Kingdom in general, and of Nonhem Ireland in particular".
That Labour party presided over Northern Ireland's great democratic change in 1970—the redrawing of constituency boundaries, which gave fairer representation to the people of Northern Ireland. It was implied tonight that the people of Northern Ireland, especially the Unionists, had been guilty of gerrymandering, but it is interesting to note that it was pressure from a Northern Ireland Assembly and the Members of the House which led to the Speaker's Conference that ultimately granted us better proportional representation in the House and which allowed more representatives of the nationalist community to come to the House. We have to keep those things clearly in mind, even though I admit that some people might disagree with it.
What is wrong with the motion tonight, which purportedly would give a better distribution of the seats? Like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I have nothing against the nominees from the Conservative party, or the nominees from the parties in Northern Ireland and I believe that the Labour party has a right to nominate its own representatives.
We shall all discover that, despite newspaper headlines that seek to portray a scenario such as "Tory-dominated Committee savages Government", the task of a Select Committee, irrespective of what party its members come from, is to scrutinise the affairs of the Department and the Government and, in the light of the evidence, to bring a report to the House. I do not doubt that in the chemistry of


a Select Committee there will be movement; there will be changes of opinion. I should like to think that hon., as well as right hon., Ladies and Gentlemen would go with the evidence rather than simply being in a partisan mood.
I find it difficult to understand how Members of the House who support accountable democracy can listen to the arguments made tonight by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. According to a recent speech by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North in the House, he does not object in principle to the Select Committee system but does object to such a system being extended to Northern Ireland. What nonsense! We see here at work a republican agenda, which seeks to separate Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom.
Amazingly enough, it was Mr. Haughey and later Mr. Reynolds who, publicly and privately—although perhaps privately they said some things differently to different people—said that it was the responsibility of the House to decide how it scrutinises the Departments of its own Government; it was not a matter for the Dublin Government or anyone outside the House.
Tonight I am happy to support the motion.

Mr. Maginnis: I do not want to quarrel with my hon. Friend at this stage, but it is a misnomer to describe the agenda of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) as a republican agenda. Tonight it was obviously a bitter, sectarian agenda, as we heard from the figures that he misquoted. It is the type of performance that we hear from bitter third generation expatriates and we would not even hear it from representatives of the nationalist community.

Rev. Martin Smyth: My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) makes his own point, but I say to him that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North wishes to remain British but seeks to deny the people of Northern Ireland their right to have the affairs of their Province scrutinised by their Parliament.
Does it not seem strange when we contrast the efforts of the shadow Northern Ireland spokesman to thwart the democratic process with the amazing conversion of, and support for, the British judicial system shown by the Sinn Fein president, Gerry Adams? Mr. Adams has seen the light and has chosen to throw himself, with a bag of British taxpayers' legal aid gold in his pocket, on the mercy of British courts in an effort to regain the right to peddle word of his organisation's terrorism throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the motion. Will he get back to it?

Rev. Martin Smyth: I have no difficulty getting back to it, but the comparison still stands and the people of Northern Ireland know the very point. It is amusing that for—

Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Before he finishes his interesting speech, will he take the opportunity at least to distance himself and the Ulster Unionist party from the remarks that were made about the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and, indeed, about many right hon. and hon. Members of the House who are first, second and third generation Irish and have no

trace of sectarianism about them, as my hon. Friend has not? I think that it is incumbent on that party to distance itself from that remark, in the interests of fairness.

Rev. Martin Smyth: In the interests of fairness, I will say to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) that he has made his point, as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McGrady) made his point. As far as I am concerned, as I am speaking on behalf of my colleagues here, I support the motion and I trust that the House stands firmly behind the recommendations of the Committee of Selection. I also pay tribute to the representative of the minority parties, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who consults those who should be consulted.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I was amazed—perhaps I should not have been—at the speech by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). He put forward a series of arguments about why the House should not have a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs and why we should not be voting Members on to that Committee.
It was strange because the hon. Gentleman talked about strand 1 of the talks held in Northern Ireland. He was not present at those talks and does not know what he is talking about. The basis of the strand 1 talks was to find a way to govern Northern Ireland and, once that was settled, to decide what relationship the Government or Administration would have with Dublin. To suggest that the Government are now breaking their pledge on strand 1 and that they should not be democratically accountable to the House through their own Select Committee is ridiculous. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman feels about strand 1, but it has nothing to do with whether the House has a Select Committee. At the strand 1 talks, everyone except the SDLP agreed that the Select Committee was a matter for this House and that the House should do for Northern Ireland what it does for every other part of the United Kingdom. That shows that the hon. Gentleman's argument was in tatters before he started his speech tonight.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that, because the Government have said that they have no selfish, strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland remaining within the United Kingdom, they should not set up the Select Committee. The Select Committee will look at the present government of Northern Ireland. Will not the people of Northern Ireland be allowed to scrutinise their own Government as those in every other part of the United Kingdom do?
The hon. Gentleman argued that, because the Government have said that they have no selfish, strategic or economic interests in keeping Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom if the majority of people in Northern Ireland do not want to remain within it, Northern Ireland should cease to have the same sort of government as the rest of the United Kingdom. He also argued that we were breaking with the status quo, but we are only establishing it. Every other part of the United Kingdom has that privilege.
Why should not we be allowed to have the Government scrutinised and to look at how they govern Northern Ireland? Why should not we be allowed to ask how the


money is spent? Why should not we be allowed to question civil servants, who have a hundred times more power in Northern Ireland today than they ever had—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Will the hon. Gentleman get back to the establishment of the Committee rather than arguing for it?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I should have thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the members of the Committee were the right people to find out what this matter is about and to scrutinise it. I am responding to the various suggestions made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. Those must be answered, for the people of Northern Ireland will say to us—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This debate is about the constitution of the Committee. If the hon. Gentleman will stick to that, he will be in order; otherwise, he will not.

Rev. Ian Paisley:: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North also mentioned some percentages. I noticed that he convenient-ly left out the fact that, in the European elections, the Ulster Democratic Unionist party took 30 per cent. of the vote. He forgot all about that. He also discovered a statistic that the Roman Catholic population now represents almost 50 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland. It is amazing that he puts up those arguments in recommending—I am coming to the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that more Labour party members should be on the Committee. If this Committee is so wretched and bad and should not exist, the hon. Gentleman should ask to give up his party's two seats on it and let other Northern Ireland Members get on the Committee to do the work in which they are interested.
The hon. Gentleman's argument is ridiculous. May I say on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland that this debate is a microcosm of what has happened in Northern Ireland throughout the years. No progress can be made because certain people will not let us, except if it is progress towards Dublin and a united Ireland. Tonight's debate simply holds up the people of Northern Ireland from having the same rights as people in the rest of the Kingdom.
We have argued about the basis of the Committee. My party has no seat on any Select Committee in the House because we were never offered a seat. I was thrown off the Select Committee on Agriculture and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) was put on it. He had to be taken off the Agriculture Committee because he did not attend, whereas I was a good attender. I do not know who is responsible for the Committee of Selection, but my party has never been approached to have a member on any Select Committee. I raised that matter with the Prime Minister and he said, "Oh, we'll see about it." So I could have a grouse tonight and say that, although my party has three Members in the House, we sit on no Select Committee.
I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Select Committee, who did a difficult job. What would be better than to have every party represented? After all, at the talks we have a party that has no members in the House—the Alliance party. Yet because one Member has his own party—the UPUP—and has been returned to the House, the Labour

party thinks that he should have no say and should not be allowed on the Select Committee. It is reasonable that all parties from Northern Ireland should be on the Committee.
Other members of the Committee do not know the whole position, the questions to ask or what needs to be probed. They do not know the difficulties that we have in Northern Ireland and they will depend largely on the representatives from Northern Ireland to put the questions that need to be put.
I am sure that the Government are not over-enthusiastic about that. Their civil servants have already told me that they are not and—I do not refer to those presently in the Box. They must realise that the tragedy of Northern Ireland, where we have been unable to scrutinise the Government, must come to an end. The Committee can do that job and I hope that it will do it well. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to have the numbers proposed on the Order Paper.

Ms Kate Hoey: May I say a few words in support of the Select Committee and the amendments in the name of my hon. Friends?
A Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs is long overdue and I am pleased that it is being set up. There is an amazing democratic deficit in Northern Ireland and the people of Northern Ireland are neglected in all sorts of ways. Before getting back to a devolved Government in Northern Ireland, the least that we can do is to get this Select Committee going and begin the scrutiny that is needed.
I support the membership of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who has done an enormous amount of work on Northern Ireland matters and who put forward his name for the original selection list. I hope that he will get on the Committee.
Some of my hon. Friends and I are sad that my party still does not allow people in Northern Ireland to join it. We are rightly asking for more Labour Members to serve on the Select Committee, yet if I went back to live in Northern Ireland I could not remain a member of the Labour party. That is disgraceful. My party needs to deal with that problem—indeed, it is dealing with it.
Recently members of the Union of Communications Workers and the Amalgamated Engineering Union were asked whether they should have the right in Northern Ireland to join the Labour party. Protestants and Catholics alike overwhelmingly stated that they wanted the right to join the Labour party and wished that they had the right to vote for it. That is not to say—unfortunately—that they would all vote Labour, but our party should at the very least be in Northern Ireland arguing for our policies and organising. Only in that way can we in the Opposition claim really to represent the people of Northern Ireland.
Attitudes to the people of Northern Ireland are often patronising. Every time we hear of another dreadful incident, we say that they just want to fight and kill each other. Yet the Labour party does not give those people the chance to cross the sectarian divide and to join a party that would fight for their jobs, their health service and so on.
I know that this debate is about only one aspect of the situation—the setting up of the Select Committee—but I hope that it will mark a new recognition of the fact that, as


long as the people of Northern Ireland want to stay part of the United Kingdom, they should have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else. And that means that the Labour party should be involved. If it were, we could change the whole nature of politics in Northern Ireland.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East is elected to the Select Committee tonight. I hope that that Committee will carry out the scrutiny of Northern Ireland affairs that they so desperately need and give the people of Northern Ireland back their faith that the people in this part of the United Kingdom care about them and understand what is happening there.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: As a member of the Committee of Selection, I cannot resist pointing out that until this evening I used to wonder why that Committee holds all those difficult meetings. Now that I have witnessed this debate in the House I can see the justification for all the work that we do in the Committee. Certainly, there have been robust exchanges of irreconcilable views this evening.
I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery). His is a difficult job. Although I do not entirely accept the recommendation that our Committee put to the House, I believe that the hon. Gentleman did everything conceivably possible to try to reach a consensus. The fact that that proved impossible was not for want of trying on his part. The House owes him a debt for the work that he did, even though a consensus eluded him.
It is always difficult to reconcile competing interests of this sort, as the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) pointed out. Some of the cross-currents cannot meet smoothly, especially since the Procedure Committee set out the rules to be followed, in the form of the motion that the House passed a few weeks ago.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) saying that his interests were not vigorously represented in the Committee of Selection. I take it that he would like to serve on more Committees scrutinising rating and valuation statutory instruments. Good Unionist that he is, I am sure that he would love to gain my recommendation that he serve on such Committees. If his name does appear on future Committee lists, he will learn that casting aspersions on members of the Committee of Selection can have its downside.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North did make a serious point, however. He was worried about the lack of places for minority parties on Select Committees. The rules of proportionality for Select Committees make it difficult to guarantee places for parliamentary groupings of only three hon. Members. As the unofficial shop steward for the minority parties, I do my best to ensure an element of rotation—but I completely understood the hon. Gentleman's Complaint.
This Select Committee is extremely necessary. That is why I found the speech by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) perplexing. I could not follow the logic of what he was trying to say. He was looking for bogeymen around every corner. Whatever birth pangs may have attended the setting up of this Committee, I hope that they will in no way make it more difficult to achieve a satisfactory resolution of the issues with which it will be concerned.
The working methods used by Select Committees—the hallmark of their success—are needed now more than ever in the Province. The hon. Member for Antrim, North rightly said that there are urgent and compelling issues to do with the governance of the Province that need scrutinising—how money is allocated, and so on. There is much work to be done; I hope that the Committee will get on with it.
The membership is not satisfactory from the point of view of the Liberal Democrats. The Chairman of the Committee of Selection said, I think, that a statistical balance had to be observed. Arithmetically speaking, he was right; but he must accept that my party played a robust part in setting up the Committee. We have always said that it should be set up, yet we have been denied membership of it. The hon. Gentleman and I have gone into the reasons for that at exhaustive length, but it is a shame that my party has not been able to nominate anyone to serve.
Certain alternatives should have been canvassed. For instance, do the Government really need a majority? It would have been better if the Select Committee covering Northern Ireland had left the Government without a majority. That would have enabled it more comprehensively to represent the shades of opinion from the Province.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale said that the Alliance party has no representative in the House but has a role to play. It is essential that the strand of opinion which it represents be given a voice in the conduct of the affairs of the Province—if that is true of Northern Ireland in general, it is even more true for the membership of this Committee.

Mr. Norman Hogg: The hon. Gentleman says that he is dissatisfied with the selection that has been made, but he has not yet said how his party intends to vote on the amendments. I commend to him amendment (c)—I have done many things in politics, but I have never before been an amendment. I hope that he will feel able to support it.

Mr. Kirkwood: I can give the hon. Gentleman the satisfaction that he seeks. There is no one I would more like to see on the Committee. Speaking as a fellow Presbyterian, I know the hon. Gentleman's prejudices well, and I look forward to giving him the opportunity to argue for them at length in the Select Committee.

Mr. Mallon: I do not wish to interfere in this Presbyterian convention, but is there any significance in the fact that amendment (c) is to leave out Mr. Dick Spring?

Mr. Kirkwood: I would be out of order if I answered that.
There is always a danger of pigeonholing people. I hope that that danger can be averted on the Select Committee. While it is reasonable that people will want to advance the political point of view of their parties, I hope that they will not be stuck in the trenches of party-political warfare. The Select Committee would suffer as a result. I should have liked more imagination and flexibility from the Government. For example, they could have set up a joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. It would have provided access to talent from the other place—people with distinguished careers and experience in the Province—and made the structure and composition of the Committee that much easier. A number of other


possibilities could have been considered to make the composition better suited to the range of political opinion and community interests in Northern Ireland.
In conclusion, as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) requested, although I repeat my tribute to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection and all our labours to get the circle squared, I cannot support the current membership of the Committee. I shall vote accordingly and ask my hon. Friends to support all the amendments, particularly amendment (c) which seeks to include the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. Why he wants to spend time trying to wrestle with the intractable problems that the Select Committee will face defeats me. We could achieve a better reconciliation of the different views by putting forward a different membership of the Committee, and I shall recommend that my hon. Friends vote accordingly.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: I shall be brief. I add my tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Mongomery). His dignity and understanding of other people's points of view enables the Committee of Selection to work effectively. It is a great service to the House that we manage to iron out most problems and ensure they do not reach the House. It is regrettable that tonight we have not achieved as much as we have in the past.
The Northern Ireland Select Committee will make an important contribution to the affairs of Northern Ireland, so its composition is absolutely vital. I return to an intervention that I made regarding the description of the Committee. Of course it can be called a symbolic Committee, but its composition will ensure that it is much more than that; it is representative of the people of Northern Ireland and it will have the widespread powers that are available to Select Committees in the House. When the Committee is in full operation, the important role that it can play will be seen in Northern Ireland.
I agree with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) that it is a pity that the Committee was not established some time ago. Nobody suggests that it will produce magic answers to many of the appallingly difficult problems in Northern Ireland, but it will have a major contribution to make in relation to the views that it will hear from the range of witnesses that it will be able to call, on whatever topic it decides to investigate in detail.
The composition was a difficult decision for the Committee of Selection and now we have to decide it in the House tonight. The recommendations are just about right and, frankly, I believe that the time has now come to get the Committee established and operating as quickly as possible, to allow it to make its contribution to the grave problems facing all the people of Northern Ireland. Let us stop the talking and get the Committee set up.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate, however briefly.
Hon. Members present tonight may not have attended the debate this afternoon, or the debate on 9 March in which I tried to argue that, although some hon. Members

might think that we are engaged in procedural matters of the House, we are without doubt involved in a political decision.
I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister of State on the Front Bench. Earlier today, I quoted some of his comments that suggested that the Committee could not and should not be formed unless it had two qualifications: first, that it had cross-community support in Northern Ireland, and secondly, that it had cross-party support in the House. Neither of those two qualifications is present, yet the decision has been made to go ahead.
The reason can be seen in the timing of the announcement by the Leader of the House—24 hours after the Downing street declaration. The announcement was on 16 December, the day after 15 December. After all the words of the previous two years, the statements by Ministers were wiped out by that action, which clearly demonstrated that we are engaged in a political rather than a procedural process this evening.
I know that I will not be allowed to continue this train of debate, because we are talking about the Select Committee—its composition, numbers and representation—yet it is important because it affects our view of the integrity of the Government's even-handed approach to the affairs of Northern Ireland.
As to the composition of the Committee as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the best yardstick one can use is the popular vote, which was obtained in June 1987 at the last general election. On that basis, it would appear that my party, the Social Democratic and Labour party, is the only party among all those in the House from Northern Ireland which is under-represented. The other three are over-represented, by however marginal a fraction. One at least is over-represented by a factor of 10.
I listened with great interest to the ingenious arguments of earlier speakers.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I would be interested to hear how the hon. Gentleman works out the statistics. We are discussing a Select Committee of a United Kingdom Parliament. Every party in Northern Ireland represented on the Select Committee is over-represented when taken against the whole United Kingdom figure.

Mr. McGrady: I do not know whether or not to thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Much has been made of the quality of representation from the Northern Ireland political parties. I reiterate the point that my party, the SDLP, is the only party which is under-represented on the Committee, and that each of the other parties is over-represented.
Some earlier speeches suggested that the Popular Unionist nomination, the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder), was not a Northern Irish nomination but was the Government representative—a Tory, but not a card-carrying member of the Tory party. I remind those who made that suggestion of the debates in the House on the Maastricht treaty and on the closure of the mines, when Ministers referred to the Conservative and Unionist party, looking at the Members of the House who sit behind me in the official Unionist parties, or whatever name they wish to use.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Neither provisional nor official.

Mr. McGrady: But they used to be official.
Why did the Government not carry forward the logic of their statements—that the appointees of the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland were extensions of the Conservative party—when their brethrenship had been claimed at the Dispatch Box on two vital occasions in the past 12 months? I find that argument disingenuous.
The fact that it is an unfair allocation of seats is not the opinion of my party alone. I have a one-sentence quotation from a editorial from the Belfast Telegraph, which cannot be described as a nationalist newspaper:
The membership, six Conservatives, two Labour, two Ulster Unionists, one DUP, one Popular Unionist and one SDLP, does not mirror the political balance in the province".
As I have said, that newspaper has no nationalist leanings whatever.
Except in regard to the political aspect referred to earlier, proportionality has not applied. It will be a great pity if the Government do not take this opportunity to display even-handedness. No later than December 1993, the central community relations unit of the Northern Ireland Office issued a circular—5/93—which stated categorically that the Government must not only respect equality of representation when dealing with various communities, but be proactive in achieving that. In my view, they have signally failed to be proactive this evening in supporting the Select Committee's recommendations; we shall therefore vote against the motion.
Reference has been made to correspondence, and the way in which arrangements for nominations were made vis-a-vis my party. Having heard accidentally that the Committee of Selection was meeting, I sent a fax to its Chairman, dated 16 March. I received his reply on 17 March, when we were all present for Northern Ireland Question Time. I took on board what the Chairman had said, and we then submitted our nominations on 19 March. The process could not have taken place more swiftly or accurately.
Until then, no communication of any nature regarding the meetings, appointments or procedures of the Select Committee was made known, through the so-called usual channels, to my party or any member of it.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Let me make two linked points.
We ought to be concerned about a question that has not been answered tonight: when has each of the six Select Committees currently considering Northern Ireland administration looked into certain issues? Between 1989 and 1990, when I served in the Northern Ireland Office, the Select Committee on Environment visited Northern Ireland, questioned me here and produced a report. I have served for a year on the Select Committee on Transport; that Committee has not considered Northern Ireland issues, and, as far as I am aware, other Committees have not done so either.
I believe that the new proposal will bring more Northern Ireland Members on to the Committee, which is why I support the recommendations of the Committee of Selection. I hope that, after tonight's votes, Northern Ireland will receive more attention, with more Northern Ireland Members and others considering the issues; that Departments will become more accountable; and that the people of Northern Ireland will benefit.

Mr. Clive Soley: If anyone had any illusions about the problems involved in legislating for Northern Ireland, today's debates should have dispelled them. We have spent about four hours debating the matter, and the Select Committee has not even met yet.
I speak with the advantage of having been nominated for membership of the Committee, and I am actually looking forward to it: I think that it will be very interesting. I hope that people will not think that I am a masochist. Let me say to the Government—and to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery), who made a pretty good fist of a difficult job—that the numbers problem is a problem for Northern Ireland Select Committees in any event. The Unionists may not be so keen on the experiment in the coming months.
As always in Northern Ireland, the problem is that legislation takes place in a way that shows the area to be different from the rest of the United Kingdom. In an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) mentioned the special delicacy involved in Northern Ireland legislation: it is that special delicacy which makes Northern Ireland different.
Let me tell my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) that all three political parties that organise, vote, campaign, put up candidates and so on in Great Britain do not do so in Northern Ireland, for very good reasons. People in Northern Ireland are quite capable of organising a Labour, Tory or Liberal party, but do not choose to do so, because the question of the border is too important.
When the Tory party tried to organise there, it was crushed when the Liberal party toyed with the idea, it was wisely advised not to become involved by the Alliance party, which presented itself as something like the Liberal party in Northern Ireland, and still does so.
There used to be a Northern Ireland Labour party—a small party, which once told me that there was a strong case for putting a gas pipeline between Northern Ireland and Scotland, that there was a far better case for that than for putting it through the south of Ireland. The party argued on the basis of there being more jobs. I am a great believer in creating more jobs, but the real reason was that the party was tending towards the Unionist position.

Rev. Martin Smyth: rose—

Mr. Soley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me; I have not much time to make this point.
If the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale were setting up a Select Committee dealing with Scottish or Welsh affairs—which he is obliged to do in his capacity—he would seek to put only Scottish or Welsh Members on that Committee. The one thing that changes the position is the existence of a Government without a majority.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) made a good point when he said that the Government should not automatically have a majority on Select Committees, but the reality is that they do. In fact, both the main political parties would support that, because in government they would want that arrangement.
The hon. Gentleman said, very fairly and bluntly, that this was a political question: it was about political power. As political power in this country comes not from the barrel of a gun but from the ballot box, there is a case for


that argument, but the hon. Gentleman knows that in Scotland only Scottish Members would be involved. The only reason for the existence of English Members on the Scottish Select Committee is the fact that the Government have no majority there, and they stack the Committee with English Members to make up the numbers.
Logically, a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs should consist only of Northern Ireland Members, except when the Government must stack it with English Members to obtain a majority. Straight away, we see the anomaly. As I have told the Unionists, the same applies to the Government of Ireland Act 1947, which states that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom for as long as it wishes. The same legislation cannot be framed for England, Scotland or Wales. It is there only because no British political party for donkey's years has treated Northern Ireland as a normal part of the United Kingdom—and we shall not be doing so again
Having said that, let me add that we are going to have a Northern Ireland Committee, and we must make it work. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall was right in one respect: Northern Ireland does not receive the coverage it deserves. However, we are not going about it in the right way by establishing a Select Committee. It is very important that the Committee does not become a mini-Stormont; if it does, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), and others who have spoken, will have their worst nightmares proved correct.
It was the Stormont parliament—which was virtually a one-party state—that produced so many of the problems with which we are now trying to cope in Northern Ireland. Other hon. Members have also referred to it as a one-party state-but, to be fair, the new Unionist parties have now splintered into several different groups.
Let me say to any Conservative Members who will be with me on the Committee that I hope they will join me in encouraging it to meet occasionally—I emphasise the word "occasionally" deliberately, because of what I just said—in Northern Ireland. That would be useful. It would also be useful if they joined me in suggesting that the Committee visited Dublin from time to time; it will need to do so. [Interruption.] Again, we see divisions of opinion, but this is very important. We should meet in Dublin and in Northern Ireland because—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not talking about where the Committee should meet; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of what the motion says.

Mr. Soley: You are absolutely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point is that Unionist Members will want the Committee to meet in Northern Ireland; they will not want it to meet in Dublin.
As Select Committee members, we must ensure that the Committee examines the problems of Northern Ireland in a bipartisan way. That is why the membership is important: it is useful for the Committee to have non-Unionist members from both sides of the House, because it is impossible to consider such matters as transport, agriculture, industrial investment, tourism and many other matters in Northern Ireland without also examining the link with southern Ireland—for instance, electricity prices and the price of the national grid for the whole of Ireland.
Those issues would not be addressed in that, way by Unionist Members. In a perverse way, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale was right to ensure that hon. Members from both sides of the House were represented on the Committee. He will not be surprised to hear me say that where he has gone badly wrong is that he has too few Labour Members. In an intervention, he made it perfectly clear why he wanted only two Labour Members on the Committee. He thought that, if there were to be a Labour Government, the Tories would have only two members. He may be right.
However, I hope that we would not have set up the Select Committee in this way, because Northern Ireland needs something better than a Select Committee. It needs proper legislation which addresses the needs of the Unionists and the republicans in Northern Ireland, and the relationship between the north of Ireland and the south. Until we do that, Northern Ireland will always be under-represented.

Mr. Harry Barnes: This is one of the better attended meetings on Northern Ireland. I hope that, by getting more involved in the affairs of Northern Ireland, the members of the Select Committee will join those of us who are concerned about Northern Ireland affairs when, late at night, we discuss appropriation measures, which are the equivalent of the Budget in Northern Ireland.
There is a great deal in which people can become involved. If the POLIS record—the parliamentary on-line information service—is examined, it will be discovered that the Conservative Members who have been placed on the Committee, with the exception of the chairman of their Back-Bench committee, have not, until now, been much involved in Northern Ireland matters in the House. That does not mean that they should not be on the Committee, as it will provide an opportunity for them to become interested in these matters.
It can do nothing but benefit Northern Ireland if we are all be interested in its affairs and concerned about its well-being.

It being one and a half hours after the motion was entered upon, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Questions which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Order this day.

Amendment proposed to the Question: (a), leave out 'Mr. James Cran' and insert 'Mr. Thomas McAvoy'.—[Mr. McNamara.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 312.

Division No. 184]
[8.31 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bell, Stuart


Adams, Mrs Irene
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bennett, Andrew F.


Allen, Graham
Benton, Joe


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bermingham, Gerald


Armstrong, Hilary
Berry, Dr. Roger


Ashton, Joe
Betts, Clive


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Blunkett, David


Barnes, Harry
Boateng, Paul


Barron, Kevin
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Battle, John
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Bayley, Hugh
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Burden, Richard


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Byers, Stephen






Caborn, Richard
Hoon, Geoffrey


Callaghan, Jim
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hoyle, Doug


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cann, Jamie
Hume, John


Cariile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hutton, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Illsley, Eric


Clapham, Michael
Ingram, Adam


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jamieson, David


Clelland, David
Janner, Greville


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Connarty, Michael
Jowell, Tessa


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Keen, Alan


Corbett, Robin
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Khabra, Piara S.


Corston, Ms Jean
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cousins, Jim
Kirkwood, Archy


Cox, Tom
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cryer, Bob
Lewis, Terry


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Litherland, Robert


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Livingstone, Ken


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dalyell, Tam
Llwyd, Elfyn


Darling, Alistair
Loyden, Eddie


Davidson, Ian
McAllion, John


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McAvoy, Thomas


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McCartney, Ian


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Macdonald, Calum


Denham, John
McFall, John


Dewar, Donald
McGrady, Eddie


Dixon, Don
McKelvey, William


Dobson, Frank
Mackinlay, Andrew


Donohoe, Brian H.
McLeish, Henry


Dowd, Jim
McMaster, Gordon


Eagle, Ms Angela
McNamara, Kevin


Eastham, Ken
McWilliam, John


Enright, Derek
Madden, Max


Etherington, Bill
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mahon, Alice


Faulds, Andrew
Mallon, Seamus


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marek, Dr John


Fisher, Mark
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Flynn, Paul
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Foulkes, George
Martlew, Eric


Fraser, John
Maxion, John


Fyfe, Maria
Meacher, Michael


Gapes, Mike
Michael, Alun


Garrett, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


George, Bruce
Milburn, Alan


Gerrard, Neil
Miller, Andrew


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morley, Elliot


Godsiff, Roger
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gordon, Mildred
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mudie, George


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mullin, Chris


Grocott, Bruce
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gunnell, John
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hall, Mike
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hanson, David
O'Hara, Edward


Hardy, Peter
Olner, William


Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Neill, Martin


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Heppell, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Pike, Peter L.


Hinchliffe, David
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hoey, Kate
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Horne Robertson, John
Prescott, John


Hood, Jimmy
Primarolo, Dawn






Purchase, Ken
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Steinberg, Gerry


Radice, Giles
Stevenson, George



Randall, Stuart
Stott, Roger


Raynsford, Nick
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Redmond, Martin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Reid, Dr John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Rendel, David
Turner, Dennis


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Vaz, Keith


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Walley, Joan


Rogers, Allan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rooney, Terry
Wareing, Robert N


Rowlands, Ted
Watson, Mike


Ruddock, Joan
Wicks, Malcolm


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Sheerman, Barry
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Winnick, David


Short, Clare
Wise, Audrey


Simpson, Alan
Worthington, Tony


Skinner, Dennis
Wray, Jimmy


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wright, Dr Tony


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Snape, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. Alan Meale and


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. John Cummings.


Spellar, John





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Aitken, Jonathan
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Alexander, Richard
Coe, Sebastian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Colvin, Michael


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Congdon, David


Ancram, Michael
Conway, Derek


Arbuthnot, James
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Ashby, David
Cormack, Patrick


Aspinwall, Jack
Couchman, James


Atkins, Robert
Cran, James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baldry, Tony
Day, Stephen


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bates, Michael
Devlin, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Dickens, Geoffrey


Beggs, Roy
Dorrell, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bendall, Vivian
Dover, Den


Beresford, Sir Paul
Duncan, Alan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Body, Sir Richard
Dunn, Bob


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Durant, Sir Anthony


Booth, Hartley
Dykes, Hugh


Boswell, Tim
Eggar, Tim


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Elletson, Harold


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bowden, Andrew
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bowis, John
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Brazier, Julian
Evennett, David


Bright, Graham
Faber, David


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fabricant, Michael


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Budgen, Nicholas
Fishburn, Dudley


Burns, Simon
Forman, Nigel


Butterfill, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Forth, Eric


Carrington, Matthew
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Carttiss, Michael
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Cash, William
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Churchill, Mr
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Clappison, James
French, Douglas






Fry, Sir Peter
Maclean, David


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Madel, Sir David


Gardiner, Sir George
Maginnis, Ken


Garnier, Edward
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gill, Christopher
Malone, Gerald


Gillan, Cheryl
Mans, Keith


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marland, Paul


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Martow, Tony


Gorst, John
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Merchant, Piers


Hague, William
Mills, Iain


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moate, Sir Roger


Hanley, Jeremy
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hannam, Sir John
Monro, Sir Hector


Hargreaves, Andrew
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Harris, David
Moss, Malcolm


Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Hawkins, Nick
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hawksley, Warren
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholls, Patrick


Heald, Oliver
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hendry, Charles
Norris, Steve


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Ottaway, Richard


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Page, Richard


Horam, John
Paice, James


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Paisley, Rev Ian


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pickles, Eric


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Rathbone, Tim


Jack, Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jenkin, Bernard
Richards, Rod


Jessel, Toby
Riddick, Graham


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knapman, Roger

Sackville, Tom


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knox, Sir David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shersby, Michael


Legg, Barry
Sims, Roger


Leigh, Edward
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lidington, David
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lightbown, David
Soames, Nicholas


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Speed, Sir Keith


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Luff, Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spring, Richard


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sproat, Iain


MacKay, Andrew
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)





Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Viggers, Peter


Steen, Anthony
Waktegrave, Rt Hon William


Stephen, Michael
Walden, George


Stern, Michael
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Stewart, Allan
Waller, Gary


Streeter, Gary
Ward, John


Sumberg, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sweeney, Walter
Waterson, Nigel


Sykes, John
Watts, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Whittingdale, John


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Widdecombe, Ann


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Thomason, Roy
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Willetts, David


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Wilshire, David


Thurnham, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wolfson, Mark


Tracey, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Tredinnick, David
Yeo, Tim


Trend, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Trimble, David



Trotter, Neville
Tellers for the Noes:


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Irvine Patrick.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed to the Question: (b), leave out `Mr. Charles Hendry' and insert 'Mr. Harry Barnes'.—[Mr. McNamara.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 313.

Division No. 185]
[8.44 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clelland, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Allen, Graham
Cohen, Harry


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Connarty, Michael


Armstrong, Hilary
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Corbett, Robin


Barnes, Harry
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Corston, Ms Jean


Battle, John
Cousins, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Cox, Tom


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cryer, Bob


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bell, Stuart
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Bennett, Andrew F.
Dalyell, Tam


Benton, Joe
Darling, Alistair


Bermingham, Gerald
Davidson, Ian


Berry, Roger
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Betts, Clive
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blunkett, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Boateng, Paul
Denham, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dewar, Donald


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dixon, Don


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Dobson, Frank


Burden, Richard
Donohoe, Brian H.


Byers, Stephen
Dowd, Jim


Caborn, Richard
Eagle, Ms Angela


Callaghan, Jim
Eastham, Ken


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Enright, Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Etherington, Bill


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Faulds, Andrew


Canavan, Dennis
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Cann, Jamie
Fisher, Mark


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Flynn, Paul


Chisholm, Malcolm
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Clapham, Michael
Foulkes, George


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Fraser, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Fyfe, Maria






Gapes, Mike
Martlew, Eric


Garrett, John
Maxton, John


George, Bruce
Meacher, Michael


Gerrard, Neil
Meale, Alan


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Michael, Alun


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Godsiff, Roger
Milburn, Alan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Miller, Andrew


Gordon, Mildred
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Graham, Thomas
Morley, Elliot


Grant, Bermie (Tottenham)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Grocott, Bruce
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gunnell, John
Mudie, George


Hall, Mike
Mullin, Chris


Hanson, David
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hardy, Peter
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Hara, Edward


Heppell, John
Olner, William


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Neill, Martin


Hinchliffe, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hoey, Kate
Patchett, Terry


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Pickthall, Colin


Horne Robertson, John
Pike, Peter L.


Hood, Jimmy
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Prescott, John


Hoyle, Doug
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Radice, Giles


Hume, John
Randall, Stuart


Hutton, John
Raynsford, Nick


Illsley, Eric
Redmond, Martin


Ingram, Adam
Reid, Dr John


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Rendel, David


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jamieson, David
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Janner, Greville
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Rooney, Terry


Jowell, Tessa
Rowlands, Ted


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ruddock, Joan


Keen, Alan
Sedgemore, Brian


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Short, Clare


Khabra, Piara S.
Simpson, Alan


Kirkwood, Archy
Skinner, Dennis


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Litherland, Robert
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Livingstone, Ken
Snape, Peter



Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Soley, Clive


Llwyd, Elfyn
Spearing, Nigel


Loyden, Eddie
Spellar, John


McAllion, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McAvoy, Thomas
Steinberg, Gerry


McCartney, Ian
Stevenson, George


Macdonald, Calum
Stott, Roger


McFall, John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McGrady, Eddie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McKelvey, William
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Turner, Dennis


McLeish, Henry
Vaz, Keith


McMaster, Gordon
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


McNamara, Kevin
Walley, Joan


McWilliam, John
Warded, Gareth (Gower)


Madden, Max
Wareing, Robert N


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Watson, Mike


Mahon, Alice
Wicks, Malcolm


Mallon, Seamus
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Marek, Dr John
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Winnick, David


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Wise, Audrey


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Worthington, Tony





Wray, Jimmy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wright, Dr Tony
Mr. John Cummings and


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Aitken, Jonathan
Dunn, Bob


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Sir Anthony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dykes, Hugh


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Eggar, Tim


Ancram, Michael
Elletson, Harold


Arbuthnot, James
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)



Ashby, David
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Aspinwall, Jack
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Atkins, Robert
Evennett, David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Faber, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fabricant, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baldry, Tony
Fishburn, Dudley


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Forman, Nigel


Bates, Michael
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Batiste, Spencer
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Beggs, Roy
Forth, Eric


Bellingham, Henry
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bendall, Vivian
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Body, Sir Richard
French, Douglas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fry, Sir Peter


Booth, Hartley
Gale, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Gallie, Phil



Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gardiner, Sir George


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Garnier, Edward


Bowden, Andrew
Gill, Christopher


Bowis, John
Gillan, Cheryl


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brandreth, Gyles
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brazier, Julian
Gorst, John


Bright, Graham
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Budgen, Nicholas
Grylls, Sir Michael


Burns, Simon
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butterfill, John
Hague, William


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carrington, Matthew
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carttiss, Michael
Hanley, Jeremy


Cash, William
Hannam, Sir John


Churchill, Mr
Hargreaves, Andrew


Clappison, James
Harris, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Haselhurst, Alan


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hawkins, Nick


Coe, Sebastian
Hawksley, Warren


Colvin, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Congdon, David
Heald, Oliver


Conway, Derek
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hendry, Charles


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Cormack, Patrick
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Couchman, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cran, James
Horam, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Day, Stephen
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Devlin, Tim
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hunter, Andrew


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jack, Michael


Dover, Den
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Duncan, Alan
Jenkin, Bernard






Jessel, Toby
Riddick, Graham


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kellett-Bowrnan, Dame Elaine
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knapman, Roger
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knox, Sir David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shersby, Michael


Legg, Barry
Sims, Roger


Leigh, Edward
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lidington, David
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)



Lightbown, David
Soames, Nicholas


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Speed, Sir Keith


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Luff, Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spring, Richard


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sproat, Iain


MacKay, Andrew
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maclean, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Madel, Sir David
Stephen, Michael


Maginnis, Ken
Stern, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stewart, Allan


Malone, Gerald
Streeter, Gary


Mans, Keith
Sumberg, David


Marland, Paul
Sweeney, Walter


Marlow, Tony
Sykes, John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Thomason, Roy


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thurnham, Peter


Moate, Sir Roger
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Monro, Sir Hector
Tracey, Richard


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tredinnick, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trend, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Trimble, David


Neubert, Sir Michael
Trotter, Neville


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Norris, Steve
Walden, George


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Ottaway, Richard
Waller, Gary


Page, Richard
Ward, John


Paice, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Waterson, Nigel


Patten, Rt Hon John
Watts, John


Pawsey, James
Wells, Bowen


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Pickles, Eric
Whitney, Ray


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Whittingdale, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Widdecombe, Ann


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Rathbone, Tim
Wilkinson, John


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Willetts, David


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wilshire, David


Richards, Rod
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)





Winterton, Nicholas(Macc'f'ld)



Wolfson, Mark
Tellers for the Noes:


Wood, Timothy
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Irvine Patnick


Yound, Rt Hon Sir George

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed to the Question: (c), leave out `Mr. Richard Spring' and insert 'Mr. Norman Hogg'.—[Mr. McNamara.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 307.

Division No. 186]
[8.56 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dixon, Don


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dobson, Frank


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Donohoe, Brian H.


Allen, Graham
Dowd, Jim


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Armstrong, Hilary
Eastham, Ken


Ashton, Joe
Enright, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Etherington, Bill


Barnes, Harry
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Barron, Kevin
Faulds, Andrew


Battle, John
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bayley, Hugh
Fisher, Mark


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Flynn, Paul


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bell, Stuart
Foulkes, George


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fraser, John


Bennett, Andrew F.
Fyfe, Maria


Benton, Joe
Gapes, Mike


Bermingham, Gerald
Garrett, John


Berry, Dr. Roger
George, Bruce


Betts, Clive
Gerrard, Neil


Blunkett, David
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Boateng, Paul
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Godsiff, Roger


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gordon, Mildred


Burden, Richard
Graham, Thomas


Byers, Stephen
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Caborn, Richard
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Callaghan, Jim
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gunnell, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hall, Mike


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hanson, David


Canavan, Dennis
Hardy, Peter


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Harman, Ms Harriet



Chisholm, Malcolm
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clapham, Michael
Heppell, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hoey, Kate


Clelland, David
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Home Robertson, John


Cohen, Harry
Hood, Jimmy


Connarty, Michael
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Doug


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)



Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cox, Tom
Hume, John


Cryer, Bob
Hutton, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Ingram, Adam


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Darling, Alistair
Jamieson, David


Davidson, Ian
Janner, Greville


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Denham, John
Keen, Alan


Dewar, Donald
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)






Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Prescott, John


Khabra, Piara S.
Primarolo, Dawn


Kilfoyle, Peter
Purchase, Ken


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lewis, Terry
Radice, Giles


Litherland, Robert
Randall, Stuart


Livingstone, Ken
Raynsford, Nick


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Redmond, Martin


Llwyd, Elfyn
Reid, Dr John


Loyden, Eddie
Rendel, David


McAllion, John
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


McAvoy, Thomas
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


McCartney, Ian
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Macdonald, Calum
Rogers, Allan


McFall, John
Rooney, Terry


McGrady, Eddie
Rowlands, Ted


McKelvey, William
Ruddock, Joan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sedgemore, Brian


McLeish, Henry
Sheerman, Barry


McMaster, Gordon
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNamara, Kevin
Short, Clare


McWilliam, John
Simpson, Alan


Madden, Max
Skinner, Dennis


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mahon, Alice
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Mallon, Seamus
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marek, Dr John
Snape, Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Soley, Clive


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Spearing, Nigel


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Spellar, John


Martlew, Eric
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Maxton, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Meacher, Michael
Stevenson, George


Michael, Alun
Stott, Roger


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Milburn, Alan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Miller, Andrew
Thompson, Jack (Wansback)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Turner, Dennis


Morley, Elliot
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Walley, Joan


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wareing, Robert N


Mudie, George
Watson, Mike


Mullin, Chris
Wicks, Malcolm


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Winnick, David


O'Hara, Edward
Wise, Audrey


Olner, William
Worthington, Tony


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wray, Jimmy


Patchett, Terry
Wright, Dr Tony


Pickthall, Colin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pike, Peter L.



Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Mr. John Cummings, and Mr. Alan Meale.


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bellingham, Henry


Aitken, Jonathan
Bendall, Vivian


Alexander, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Body, Sir Richard


Ancram, Michael
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arbuthnot, James
Booth, Hartley


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boswell, Tim


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Aspinwall, Jack
Bowden, Andrew


Atkins, Robert
Bowis, John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)
Brandreth, Gyles


Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)
Brazier, Julian


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Bright, Graham


Baldry, Tony
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Bates, Michael
Budgen, Nicholas


Batiste, Spencer
Burns, Simon


Beggs, Roy
Butterfill, John






Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, Nick


Carrington, Matthew
Hawksley, Warren


Carttiss, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Cash, William
Heald, Oliver


Chapman, Sydney
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Churchill, Mr
Hendry, Charles


Clappison, James
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coe, Sebastian
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Colvin, Michael
Horam, John


Congdon, David
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter



Conway, Derek
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cormack, Patrick
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cran, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunter, Andrew


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jack, Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jenkin, Bernard


Day, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)



Dorrell, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
Kilfedder, Sir James


Duncan, Alan
King, Rt Hon Tom


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dunn, Bob
Knapman, Roger


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Elletson, Harold
Knox, Sir David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Legg, Barry


Evennett, David
Leigh, Edward


Faber, David
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fabricant, Michael
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lidington, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lightbown, David


Fishburn, Dudley
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Luff, Peter


Forth, Eric

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Maclean, David


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Madel, Sir David


French, Douglas
Maginnis, Ken


Fry, Sir Peter
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gale, Roger
Malone, Gerald


Gallie, Phil
Mans, Keith


Gardiner, Sir George
Marland, Paul


Garnier, Edward
Marlow, Tony


Gill, Christopher
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gillan, Cheryl
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)



Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gorst, John
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mills, Iain


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moate, Sir Roger


Hague, William
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hanley, Jeremy
Moss, Malcolm


Hannam, Sir John
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Neubert, Sir Michael


Harris, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony






Nicholls, Patrick
Stephen, Michael


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stern, Michael


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stewart, Allan


Norris, Steve
Streeter, Gary


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Sumberg, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Sweeney, Walter


Ottaway, Richard
Sykes, John


Page, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Paice, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Pawsey, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thomason, Roy


Pickles, Eric
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Tracey, Richard


Richards, Rod
Tredinnick, David


Riddick, Graham
Trend, Michael


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Trimble, David


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Trotter, Neville


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Viggers, Peter


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Walden, George


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Waller, Gary


Sackville, Tom
Ward, John


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Waterson, Nigel


Shaw, David (Dover)
Watts, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wells, Bowen


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitney, Ray


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Whittingdale, John


Shersby, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Sims, Roger
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Willetts, David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wilshire, David


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Soames, Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Speed, Sir Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wood, Timothy


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Yeo, Tim


Spink, Dr Robert
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spring, Richard



Sproat, Iain
Tellers for the Noes:


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Mr. Andrew MacKay and Mr. Michael Brown


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John



Steen, Anthony

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed to the Question: (d), leave out 'Mr. David Wilshire' and insert 'Mr. Andrew Mackinlay'.—[Mr. McNamara. ]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 308.

Division No. 187]
[9.08 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bennett, Andrew F.


Allen, Graham
Benton, Joe


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bermingham, Gerald


Armstrong, Hilary
Berry, Dr. Roger


Ashton, Joe
Betts, Clive


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Blunkett, David


Barnes, Harry
Boateng, Paul


Barron, Kevin
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Battle, John
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Bayley, Hugh
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Burden, Richard


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Byers, Stephen


Bell, Stuart
Caborn, Richard





Callaghan, Jim
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hoyle, Doug


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Canavan, Dennis
Hume, John


Cann, Jamie
Hutton, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Illsley, Eric


Chisholm, Malcolm
Ingram, Adam


Clapham, Michael
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jamieson, David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Janner, Greville


Clelland, David
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cohen, Harry
Jowell, Tessa


Connarty, Michael
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Keen, Alan


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Corbett, Robin
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Khabra, Piara S.


Corston, Ms Jean
Kirkwood, Archy


Cousins, Jim
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cox, Tom
Lewis, Terry


Cryer, Bob
Litherland, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Livingstone, Ken


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dalyell, Tam
Loyden, Eddie


Darling, Alistair
McAllion, John


Davidson, Ian
McAvoy, Thomas


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

McCartney, Ian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Macdonald, Calum


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
McFall, John


Denham, John
McGrady, Eddie


Dewar, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dixon, Don
Mackinlay, Andrew


Donohoe, Brian H.
McLeish, Henry


Dowd, Jim
McMaster, Gordon


Eagle, Ms Angela
McNamara, Kevin


Eastham, Ken
McWilliam, John


Enright, Derek
Madden, Max


Etherington, Bill
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Faulds, Andrew
Mahon, Alice


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mallon, Seamus


Fisher, Mark
Marek, Dr John


Flynn, Paul
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Foulkes, George
Martlew, Eric


Fraser, John
Maxton, John


Fyfe, Maria
Meacher, Michael


Gapes, Mike
Meale, Alan


Garrett, John
Michael, Alun


George, Bruce
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Gerrard, Neil
Milburn, Alan


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Miller, Andrew


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Godsiff, Roger
Morley, Elliot


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Gordon, Mildred
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Graham, Thomas
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mudie, George


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mullin, Chris


Grocott, Bruce
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Gunnell, John
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hall, Mike
O'Hara, Edward



Hanson, David
Olner, William


Hardy, Peter
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Harman, Ms Harriet
Patchett, Terry


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pickthall, Colin


Heppell, John
Pike, Peter L.


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hinchliffe, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hoey, Kate
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Prescott, John


Horne Robertson, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Hood, Jimmy
Purchase, Ken


Hoon, Geoffrey
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Randall, Stuart






Raynsford, Nick
Stevenson, George


Redmond, Martin
Stott, Roger


Reid, Dr John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Rendel, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Turner, Dennis


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Vaz, Keith


Rogers, Allan
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Rooney, Terry
Walley, Joan


Rowlands, Ted
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ruddock, Joan
Wareing, Robert N


Sedgemore, Brian
Watson, Mike


Sheerman, Barry
Wicks, Malcolm


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Short, Clare
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Simpson, Alan
Winnick, David


Skinner, Dennis
Wise, Audrey


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wray, Jimmy


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wright, Dr Tony


Snape, Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Soley, Clive



Spearing, Nigel
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spellar, John
Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)



Steinberg, Gerry





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Conway, Derek


Aitken, Jonathan
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Cormack, Patrick


Ancram, Michael
Couchman, James


Arbuthnot, James
Cran, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Ashby, David
Davies, Ouentin (Stamford)


Aspinwall, Jack
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Devlin, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Dorrell, Stephen


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bates, Michael
Dover, Den


Batiste, Spencer
Duncan, Alan


Beggs, Roy
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bellingham, Henry
Dunn, Bob


Bendall, Vivian
Durant, Sir Anthony


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dykes, Hugh


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Eggar, Tim


Body, Sir Richard
Elletson, Harold


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfleld)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Boswell, Tim
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Evennett, David


Bowden, Andrew
Faber, David


Bowis, John
Fabricant, Michael 


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fenner, Dame Peggy 


Brandreth, Gyles
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brazier, Julian 
Fishburn, Dudley


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Forman, Nigel


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Burns, Simon 
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Butterfill, John 
Forth, Eric


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carrington, Matthew
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Carttiss, Michael
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Cash, William
French, Douglas


Chapman, Sydney 
Fry, Sir Peter 


Churchill, Mr
Gale, Roger


Clappison, James
Gallie, Phil


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gardiner, Sir George


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Garnier, Edward


Coe, Sebastian
Gill, Christopher


Colvin, Michael
Gillan, Cheryl


Congdon, David
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles





Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorst, John
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Grylls, Sir Michael
Merchant, Piers


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mills, Iain


Hague, William
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moate, Sir Roger


Hampson, Dr Keith
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hanley, Jeremy
Monro, Sir Hector


Hannam, Sir John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hargreaves, Andrew
Moss, Malcolm


Harris, David
Nelson, Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heald, Oliver
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Norris, Steve


Hendry, Charles
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Ottaway, Richard


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Page, Richard


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Paice, James



Horam, John
Paisley, Rev Ian


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Patnick, Irvine


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howarth, Alan (Strafrd-on-A)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pickles, Eric


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Rathbone, Tim


Jack, Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jenkin, Bernard
Richards, Rod


Jessel, Toby
Riddick, Graham


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn



Jones, Robert B. (WHertfdshr)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knapman, Roger
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knox, Sir David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shersby, Michael


Legg, Barry
Sims, Roger


Leigh, Edward
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lidington, David
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lightbown, David
Soames, Nicholas


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Speed, Sir Keith


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lord, Michael 
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Luff, Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spring, Richard


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sproat, Iain


Maclean, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Madel, Sir David
Steen, Anthony


Maginnis, Ken
Stephen, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stern, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stewart, Allan


Mans, Keith
Streeter, Gary


Marland, Paul
Sumberg, David


Marlow, Tony
Sweeney, Walter






Sykes, John
Waller, Gary


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Ward, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)
Waterson, Nigel


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Watts, John


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wells, Bowen


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Thomason, Roy
Whitney, Ray


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Whittingdale, John


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Thumham, Peter
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wilkinson, John


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Willetts, David


Tracey, Richard
Wilshire, David


Tredinnick, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Trend, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Trimble, David
Wolfson, Mark


Trotter, Neville
Wood, Timothy


Twinn, Dr Ian
Yeo, Tim


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Viggers, Peter



Walden, George
Tellers for the Noes:


Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Mr. Andrew MacKay and Mr. Michael Brown


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed to the Question: (e), leave out 'Mr. Mark Wolfson' and insert 'Mr. Austin Mitchell'.—[Mr. McNamara.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 307.

Division No. 188]
[9.21 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Corbett, Robin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Allen, Graham
Corston, Ms Jean


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cousins, Jim


Armstrong, Hilary
Cox, Tom


Ashton, Joe
Cryer, Bob


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cummings, John


Barnes, Harry
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barron, Kevin
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Battle, John
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Bayley, Hugh
Dalyell, Tam


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Darling, Alistair


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Davidson, Ian


Bell, Stuart
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Benton, Joe
Denham, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Dewar, Donald


Berry, Roger
Dixon, Don


Betts, Clive
Dobson, Frank


Blunkett, David
Donohoe, Brian H.


Boateng, Paul
Dowd, Jim


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eagle, Ms Angela


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Eastham, Ken


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Enright, Derek


Burden, Richard
Etherington, Bill


Byers, Stephen
Faulds, Andrew


Callaghan, Jim
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foulkes, George


Canavan, Dennis
Fraser, John


Cann, Jamie
Fyfe, Maria


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Gapes, Mike


Chisholm, Malcolm
Garrett, John


Clapham, Michael
George, Bruce


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Gerrard, Neil


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clelland, David
Godsiff, Roger


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cohen, Harry
Gordon, Mildred


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Graham, Thomas





Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morley, Elliot


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gunnell, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hall, Mike
Mudie, George


Hanson, David
Mullin, Chris


Hardy, Peter
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Brien, Michael (N Wkshire)


Heppell, John
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Hara, Edward


Hinchliffe, David
Olner, William


Hoey, Kate
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Patchett, Terry


Horne Robertson, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hood, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L.


Hoon, Geoffrey
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howarth, George (KnowsleyN)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hoyle, Doug
Prescott, John


Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hume, John
Randall, Stuart


Hutton, John
Raynsford, Nick


Ingram, Adam
Redmond, Martin


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Reid, Dr John


Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)
Rendel, David


Jamieson, David
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Janner, Greville
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Rogers, Allan


Jowell, Tessa
Rooney, Terry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rowlands, Ted


Keen, Alan
Ruddock, Joan


Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Sheerman, Barry


Khabra, Piara S.
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kilfoyle, Peter
Short, Clare


Kirkwood, Archy
Simpson, Alan


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Litherland, Robert
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Snape, Peter


Llwyd, Elfyn
Soley, Clive


Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


McAllion, John
Spellar, John


McAvoy, Thomas
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McCartney, Ian
Steinberg, Gerry


Macdonald, Calum
Stevenson, George


McFall, John
Stott, Roger


McGrady, Eddie
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McKelvey, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McLeish, Henry
Turner, Dennis


McMaster, Gordon
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


McNamara, Kevin
Walley, Joan


McWilliam, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Madden, Max
Wareing, Robert N


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Watson, Mike


Mahon, Alice
Wicks, Malcolm


Mallon, Seamus
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)



Marek, Dr John
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Winnick, David


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wise, Audrey


Martlew, Eric
Worthington, Tony


Maxton, John
Wray, Jimmy


Meacher, Michael
Wright, Dr Tony


Michael, Alun
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)



Milburn, Alan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Miller, Andrew
Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Alan Meale.


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)


Aitken, Jonathan
Ancram, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Arbuthnot, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)






Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Fishburn, Dudley


Ashby, David
Forman, Nigel


Aspinwall, Jack
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Forth, Eric


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Baldry, Tony
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bates, Michael
French, Douglas


Batiste, Spencer
Fry, Sir Peter


Beggs, Roy
Gale, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
Gallie, Phil


Bendall, Vivian
Gardiner, Sir George


Beresford, Sir Paul
Garnier, Edward


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gill, Christopher


Body, Sir Richard
Gillan, Cheryl


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Booth, Hartley
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boswell, Tim
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowden, Andrew
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowis, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brandreth, Gyles
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brazier, Julian
Hague, William


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burns, Simon
Hanley, Jeremy


Butterfill, John
Hannam, Sir John


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harris, David


Carrington, Matthew
Haselhurst, Alan


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, Nick


Cash, William
Hawksley, Warren


Chapman, Sydney
Hayes, Jerry


Churchill, Mr
Heald, Oliver


Clappison, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hendry, Charles


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Coe, Sebastian
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Congdon, David
Horam, John


Conway, Derek
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Couchman, James
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cran, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunter, Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jack, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Day, Stephen
Jenkin, Bernard


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jessel, Toby


Devlin, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dover, Den
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Duncan, Alan
Key, Robert


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dunn, Bob
King, Rt Hon Tom


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Knapman, Roger


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Faber, David
Legg, Barry


Fabricant, Michael
Leigh, Edward


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)





Lidington, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lightbown, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Shersby, Michael


Lord, Michael
Sims, Roger


Luff, Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacKay, Andrew
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Maclean, David
Soames, Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Speed, Sir Keith


Madel, Sir David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Maginnis, Ken
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spink, Dr Robert


Malone, Gerald
Spring, Richard


Mans, Keith
Sproat, Iain


Marland, Paul
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marlow, Tony
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stephen, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stern, Michael


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Allan


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Streeter, Gary


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Sumberg, David


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Sweeney, Walter


Merchant, Piers
Sykes, John


Mills, Iain
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moate, Sir Roger
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Thomason, Roy


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tracey, Richard


Norris, Steve
Tredinnick, David


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Trend, Michael



Oppenheim, Phillip
Trimble, David


Ottaway, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Page, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Paice, James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Paisley, Rev Ian
Viggers, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Walden, George


Patten, Rt Hon John
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Pawsey, James
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waller, Gary


Pickles, Eric
Ward, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waterson, Nigel


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Watts, John


Rathbone, Tim
Wells, Bowen


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Whitney, Ray


Richards, Rod
Whittingdale, John


Riddick, Graham
Widdecombe, Ann


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wilkinson, John


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Willetts, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wilshire, David


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Wolfson, Mark


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Yeo, Tim


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard



Sackville, Tom
Tellers for the Noes


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Andrew Mitchell.


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas



Shaw, David (Dover)

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That Mr. James Cran, Mr. Charles Hendry, Mr. Andrew Hunter, Sir James Kilfedder, Mr. Eddie McGrady, Mr. Ken


Maginnis, Mr. Jim Marshall, Mr. Peter Robinson, Mr. Clive Soley, Mr. Richard Spring, Mr. John D. Taylor, Mr. David Wilshire and Mr. Mark Wolfson be members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.—[Mr. Patnick]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

EUROPEAN SOCIAL POLICY

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10401/93, relating to European social policy; and shares the Government's view that future social policy in the Community should promote jobs and competitiveness and not impose unnecessary costs on industry.—[Mr. Patnick.]

The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 211.

Division No. 189]
[9.33


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Couchman, James


Aitken, Jonathan

Cran, James


Alexander, Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Ancram, Michael
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arbuthnot, James
Day, Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Ashby, David
Dicks, Terry


Aspinwall, Jack
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dover, Den


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Duncan, Alan


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Baldry, Tony
Dunn, Bob


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dykes, Hugh


Bates, Michael
Eggar, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Elletson, Harold


Beggs, Roy
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bendall, Vivian
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evennett, David


Body, Sir Richard
Faber, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fabricant, Michael


Booth, Hartley
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Boswell, Tim
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fishburn, Dudley


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Forman, Nigel


Bowden, Andrew
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowis, John
Forth, Eric


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brandreth, Gyles
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brazier, Julian
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Browning, Mrs. Angela
French, Douglas


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fry, Sir Peter


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Butterfill, John
Gallie, Phil


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gardiner, Sir George


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Garnier, Edward


Carrington, Matthew
Gill, Christopher


Carttiss, Michael
Gillan, Cheryl


Cash, William
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Chapman, Sydney
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Churchill, Mr
Gorst, John


Clappison, James
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Coe, Sebastian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Colvin, Michael
Grylls, Sir Michael


Congdon, David
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn



Conway, Derek
Hague, William


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Cormack, Patrick
Hanley, Jeremy





Hannam, Sir John
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Neubert, Sir Michael


Harris, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hayes, Jerry
Norris, Steve


Heald, Oliver
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hendry, Charles
Ottaway, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Page, Richard


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Paice, James


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Horam, John
Patnick, Irvine


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pawsey, James


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Pickles, Eric


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jack, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Richards, Rod


Jenkin, Bernard
Riddick, Graham


Jessel, Toby
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Key, Robert
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knapman, Roger
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knox, Sir David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shersby, Michael


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sims, Roger


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Legg, Barry
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Soames, Nicholas


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Speed, Sir Keith


Lidington, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lightbown, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Spring, Richard


Lord, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Luff, Peter
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony



MacKay, Andrew
Stephen, Michael


Maclean, David
Stern, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan


Madel, Sir David
Streeter, Gary


Maginnis, Ken
Sumberg, David


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sweeney, Walter


Malone, Gerald
Sykes, John


Mans, Keith
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thomason, Roy


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Merchant, Piers
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mills, Iain
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Tredinnick, David


Moate, Sir Roger
Trend, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Trotter, Neville


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moss, Malcolm
Vaughan, Sir Gerard






Viggers, Peter
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Walden, George
Wilkinson, John


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Willetts, David


Waller, Gary
Wilshire, David


Ward, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Waterson, Nigel
Wolfson, Mark


Watts, John
Yeo, Tim


Wells, Bowen
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John



Whitney, Ray
Tellers for the Ayes:


Whittingdale, John
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Andrew Mitchell.


Widdecombe, Ann





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Darling, Alistair


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davidson, Ian


Allen, Graham
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Armstrong, Hilary
Denham, John


Ashton, Joe
Dewar, Donald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dixon, Don


Barnes, Harry
Dobson, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Donohoe, Brian H.


Bayley, Hugh
Dowd, Jim


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Eagle, Ms Angela


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Eastham, Ken


Bell, Stuart
Etherington, Bill


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bennett, Andrew F.
Faulds, Andrew


Benton, Joe
Fisher, Mark


Bermingham, Gerald
Flynn, Paul


Betts, Clive
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Blunkett, David
Foulkes, George


Boateng, Paul
Fraser, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gapes, Mike


Burden, Richard
Garrett, John


Byers, Stephen
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gordon, Mildred


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Graham, Thomas


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Grocott, Bruce


Clelland, David
Gunnell, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hall, Mike


Cohen, Harry
Hanson, David


Connarty, Michael
Hardy, Peter


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heppell, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cousins, Jim
Hinchliffe, David


Cox, Tom
Hoey, Kate


Cryer, Bob
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cummings, John
Home Robertson, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hood, Jimmy


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Dalyell, Tam
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)





Hoyle, Doug
O' Brien, William (Normanton)


Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)
Olner, William


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Patchett, Terry


Hutton, John
Pickthall, Colin


Ingram, Adam
Pike, Peter L.


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Prescott, John


Janner, Greville
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jowell, Tessa
Randall, Stuart


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Raynsford, Nick


Keen, Alan
Redmond, Martin


Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)
Reid, Dr John


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Rendel, David


Khabra, Piara S.
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Kirkwood, Archy
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rogers, Allan


Lewis, Terry
Rooney, Terry


Litherland, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Livingstone, Ken
Ruddock, Joan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sedgemore, Brian


Llwyd, Elfyn
Sheerman, Barry


Loyden, Eddie
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McAllion, John
Short, Clare


McAvoy, Thomas
Simpson, Alan


McCartney, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McFall, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McGrady, Eddie
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McKelvey, William
Snape, Peter


Mackinlay, Andrew
Soley, Clive


McMaster, Gordon
Spellar, John


McNamara, Kevin
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McWilliam, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Madden, Max
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mahon, Alice
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mallon, Seamus
Turner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Vaz, Keith


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Walley, Joan


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Martlew, Eric
Wareing, Robert N


Maxton, John
Watson, Mike


Meacher, Michael
Welsh, Andrew


Michael, Alun
Wicks, Malcolm


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Milburn, Alan
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Miller, Andrew
Winnick, David


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wise, Audrey


Morley, Elliot
Worthington, Tony


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy"nshawe)
Wray, Jimmy


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)



Mowlam, Marjorie
Tellers for the Noes:


Mudie, George
Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Eric Illsley


Mullin, Chris



O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Shipbuilding (Wearside)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Bill Etherington: I want to speak tonight about the one remaining shipyard on the River Wear in Sunderland. Sad to say, it is mothballed now. A certain air of mystery and a certain amount of misunderstanding surround this whole business, which is why I am pleased to bring it to the attention of the House.
Earlier today, I was in South Shields, at a function organised by the RMT union: the function was organised on behalf of the seamen's campaign known as Save Our Shipping. At the meeting, it was pointed out that the British merchant fleet is now 20 per cent. of the size it was in 1979. That statistic coincides almost exactly with the running down of the British shipbuilding industry.
Recently, an early-day motion on the subject of British shipping and Government intervention was tabled and signed by 70 Conservative Members. I only wish that they would all vote with the Opposition; then we could reverse the seemingly irreversible drift towards the decimation of our merchant fleet and of our remaining shipyards.
My predecessor, Bob Clay, was the Member for Sunderland, North when the last two shipyards on the Wear came under threat in 1988. I pay tribute to his attempts to keep at least one of those shipyards open. The best site on the river, the former Thompson shipyard—capable of launching ships of 100,000 tonnes draught carrying capacity—was sterilised by the Tyne and Wear development corporation. As most people know, the corporation is an arm of Government and carries out Government instructions on how localities are to be run.
Unfortunately, it was decided to build a university campus on the site, and on the site of the adjoining wharf, an excellent fitting out yard. The river is therefore almost denuded of shipbuilding capacity, and the one yard that is left, run by Pallion Engineering Ltd, has been mothballed. It is about a mile and a half up the river and it cannot produce such large ships anyway. It is nothing like as good a site as the Thompson site would have been.
In 1957, when I started serving my apprenticeship as a fitter at the Austin Pickersgill yard at Southwick, there were no fewer than seven shipyards on the River Wear—all extremely viable. Because the old merchant fleet was to be gradually replaced at the time, it appeared that there were many years of work to come. All that started to collapse in the 1960s, however, and eventually only two yards were left—one of them, Pickersgills, the most modern yard in Europe. It built the famous SD14 cargo ships, which were acclaimed throughout the world for their quality and utility.
Nevertheless, the quality did not seem to stop the yard closing. It became obvious that the EC, together with the British Government, was determined to get rid of all shipbuilding capacity on the River Wear. Bob Clay was active in trying to keep open some remnant of the industry, and he was instrumental in setting up what became known as Pallion Engineering. This was a fairly unusual company, in as much as 75 per cent. of it was owned by a Greek shipping conglomerate, Tycoon Marine, which was registered in Liberia: beggars cannot be choosers. The other 25 per cent. was owned by a works co-operative known as an ESOP—an employee share ownership plan.
Well-wishers put their money into the concern on behalf of the workers; it would have been nice if they had had some return for their good work, because their motives were of the best philanthropic kind.
It took almost two years to get agreement that the Pallion yard would be leased for a period of 10 years for a down payment and also a peppercorn rent. I had heard of a peppercorn rent, but only once have I seen a lease that mentioned that the annual rent would be one peppercorn. Not being a lawyer, I thought it was a derisory term, but we live and learn.
Eventually, it was agreed that the yard would be leased and that at the end of the 10-year period it would become the property of the conglomerate. I know Bob Clay and others who worked tirelessly in the campaign, including my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), who was the convener of the campaign to keep the yard open, and Jacquie Apperley, who is now my research assistant and who also worked with Bob Clay. Everyone was under the impression that there would be no shipbuilding, ship repair or maritime work for five years and that at the end of five years the position would be re-examined. There was a strong possibility that, by then, it would be possible to continue with some shipbuilding work. I have spoken to numerous people, and what happened subsequently was quite amazing.
The yard staggered on; it was always run on a shoestring, yet the Greeks probably put more than £1 million into the yard to maintain it as a going concern so that should there be an upturn in trade it could be utilised.
As the end of the five-year term approached, the Greek shipowners made it obvious that they wanted to use their property to carry out some ship repair work. They produced a business plan which would have led to the employment initially of perhaps 250 people, eventually increasing to 600 or 700 people.
When I was approached, the yard had lain dormant for many years. Bob Clay had left the scene for reasons I do not know and, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), I had several meetings with the management of the yard to appraise what was going on. It was never a very happy scenario. The yard was staggering from one crisis to another. There was a little prefabrication work and it was possible to employ 80 or 90 people at the most, but eventually that work dried up and the Greek shipowners reluctantly put the yard on to a care-and-maintenance basis.
At that time, we became aware that they wanted to carry out ship repair work. Following the meeting that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South and I had with the yard management, I wrote to the Minister and asked for his assistance in trying to get the terms relaxed or varied in such a way that at least some ship repair work would be done. That point is paramount for the owners and it should carry some weight.
The shipowners said that if they could refurbish six to eight ships, it would provide two or three years' work and would make the yard viable. They made the point forcefully that they were not looking for financial assistance from the Government or from what is now the European Union. They also stressed that if the yard was not allowed to carry out the work it would not be carried out within the European Union, and would probably go outside what was then the EEC to some other foreign country.
They stressed that this would not in any way affect the other yards and ship repair facilities within the Community.
In all our discussions, everyone took the view that there would be no difficulty in getting that agreed. When I wrote to the Minister on 13 July last year, he replied that meetings were in progress between two of the directors, one representing the ESOP and one representing the Greek shipowners—Canon Brian Hales and Alan Dickinson—and the regional officials of the Department of Trade and Industry in Newcastle. The Minister said that he would write to me again following the outcome of the talks.
At that time, we also sought the assistance of the MEP for the region, Alan Donnelly. He eventually arranged a meeting for us in Brussels. Originally, it was to have been with Karel van Miert, the Commissioner; as it happened, he was not available, and we saw one of his senior civil servants who had advised him on the subject. We understood that we were meeting someone with a certain amount of knowledge and prestige.
We met on 22 December last year—that is, the two directors Brian Hales and Alan Dickinson, Alan Donnelly, Askar Petersen, the EC civil servant, and me. We had a long and constructive discussion. The civil servant told us that, if we couched the application in terms of ship repair, it should be possible to obtain sympathetic consideration from the Commission. It was not the best time to be traveling: I did not particularly enjoy coming back on Christmas eve through airports. I do not do much flying in any event, and that was rather a burden. Nevertheless, I felt content that we had made some progress.
At the meeting, it was agreed that Alan Donnelly, Karel van Miert and his civil servant would arrange a meeting with the directors and people in the EC to try to make some progress. On 10 January, I wrote to the Minister to explain what had happened, and again asked for his assistance. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South and I wrote again on 1 February to ask for a meeting. On 24 February, I received a reply refusing the meeting and saying that there was no point.
As always, the Minister's reply was very polite but somewhat daunting. It read:
Thank you for your letters of 10 January and 1 February about the prospects of re-opening the former Pallion shipyard in Sunderland for the purpose of ship repair.
You asked whether it is correct that the terms on which the Sunderland yard was leased to Pallion Engineering precluded its use for shipbuilding, ship conversion and ship repair until 31 January 1999. I can confirm that that is indeed the case.
With respect to Mr. Petersen's remarks last December, my officials have established that there had been no softening of the Commission's policy on ship repair. Mr. Petersen left open the possibility of ship repair because of his unfamiliarity with the detail of the 1988 agreement which wound up North East Shipbuilders Ltd.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Are we not all unfamiliar with the detail of that 1988 arrangement? One of the useful things that the Minister could do tonight—if he were listening, which he is not at the moment—is make clear the details of that arrangement, or at least agree to put them in the Library. Over the years, it has proved particularly puzzling. I recall that it even puzzled the Lord President of the Council—or, at any rate, he did not know about it until after he should have. It is good to see him here this evening.
We are all puzzled about that agreement—and we would like to see it, would we not?

Mr. Etherington: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. As I said earlier, he has been actively involved in the matter. In what is now the city of Sunderland, it does not matter very much where any manufacturing output is; people in his constituency are affected, and we have tended to take a joint approach.
My hon. Friend is right to say that we are all unfamiliar with the details. Perhaps some of us are more unfamiliar with them than others. I was very unfamiliar with them: all I had to go on was hearsay. I had no direct inkling of what had gone on. I shall return to that shortly. I intend to quote from another rather disturbing letter.
The letter continues:
I am sorry to disappoint you but I am sure that you will agree that, in these circumstances, there can currently be no question of re-opening the Pallion yard. For that reason I do not think that it would be useful to hold a meeting.
We should bear in mind that only nine months before that talks were being arranged between the regional officials of the Department of Trade and Industry and the yard management, presumably to see what could be clarified. It had not been clarified by December when we went to Brussels and it was only finally clarified on receipt of the letter from the Minister dated 24 February.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Etherington: I am a little puzzled about that procedure, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): The hon. Gentleman should simply carry on speaking. We have just dealt with the 10 o'clock business motion.

Mr. Etherington: I thought that it might have been meant as a bit of a sprag in my wheel, but it is obviously of no real consequence.
You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I mentioned the letter that I wrote in July to which the Minister replied by stating that talks were going on within the region. All the dealings that I have had with our MEP, the Commission and the management of the shipyard have given me the impression that the regional DTI officials were supportive and encouraging. However, as is often the case, we do not have anything in writing to that effect.
I have another letter which pre-dates the Minister's response to me last August. It is from Karel van Miert of the Commission of the European Communities to Bishop David Jenkins. We all appreciate what Bishop Jenkins is doing within our region to try to alleviate the high unemployment and other social problems. I will not read it all, but the relevant parts state:
The British government committed itself to the irreversible nature of the closure"—
referring to the Pallion yard—
for a period of not less than five years.
That is what everybody understood. It went on:
The agreed closure date was 27 January 1989. In 1991 the Commission approved the sale of the yard to `Pallion Engineering', after having been informed that a clause was included on the contract prohibiting its use for shipbuilding, ship conversion and ship repair until 31 January 1999.
The Pallion yard is still in the first five year period (ending 27 January 1994). After that period and before ten years, the Commission would have to give its prior approval to the eventual reopening of the yard.


I do not think that I am alone in being confused. I hope that I have not made the confusion any worse by my speech tonight. I am rather puzzled.
While those gyrations are taking place, we have problems in my constituency. We have lost the last colliery in County Durham. It may be reprieved if private enterprise takes it over. That is a bitter pill for me to swallow. It is a little like Hobson's choice. We do not see a week go by without some group of people becoming unemployed or put on short-time working. Despite what we are told about the strenuous efforts being made in the area, the unemployment level remains about the same as it has been for the past three or four years. New jobs are being created, but they are unable to keep up with what we are losing.
I should have thought that a Government who were committed to, I will not say full employment, but perhaps less unemployment—that is what they say—might have been a little more constructive in their offer to provide jobs in my constituency. As I have stated already, the work will not affect the overall position within the European Union.
I have written to the Minister on a number of occasions and I keep getting the reply that this is a matter for the European Union—a fact of which I am only too well aware. All I have asked is for the Minister and his Department to say, "Yes, we back the people of Sunderland. We will go to the Commission and ask whether something can be done". That is what it is all about: the Minister should ask whether there can be a variation.
The proposal that has been put forward is very good; there can be no doubt about that. But I get the impression that there is some ambivalence. The regional office of the DTI is saying one thing and the Minister is writing letters to me which say something entirely different. We want to know where we stand. I do not want to spend another 18 months running about unnecessarily, and I do not want to waste another European trip, perhaps next year, seeing some Commissioner about getting something changed and knowing full well that the matter has been decided before I go.
In this short speech, I have given the Minister the opportunity to reply—my hon. Friends might have something to say about this matter also. As a former shipyard worker, I have seen the River Wear slowly destroyed, I have seen our merchant shipping fleet slowly denuded, and I have watched the number of seamen dwindle. I am always conscious of the fact that the National Union of Seamen was formed in Sunderland, which has a very proud tradition of shipbuilding and seamanship.
I get the impression that the Government, through the Tyne and Wear development corporation, have sterilised the river. It now seems more important to provide flash, yuppie-type university campuses than to produce jobs, enabling people to make a meaningful contribution to society and the economy.
The site that has been chosen could hardly be worse. Even before the university has been built, we face a problem with traffic. As the Tyne and Wear development corporation, in its wisdom, has decided to build student accommodation on the other side of the river, perhaps we will see a reincarnation of the ferry service that was ended

some 25 years ago. Those are the sorts of planning decisions from which we seem to be suffering. It is a very sad state of affairs.
I want to know exactly where we stand. I ask the Minister: will he join us in trying to put some pressure on the European Union to see whether we can get the shipyard operating and perhaps see a return of some semblance of shipbuilding on the River Wear, or are we to allow our assets to go to waste? The Greeks will not wait another five years. The yard has been standing idle for five years and they have invested a lot of money in it—as have other people. Something must be done in the reasonably near future.
There is work available; we are not talking about chasing orders. The orders are there in black and white, which is more than I can say for what we will get from the regional branch of the DTI. In those circumstances, I make that request of the Minister and I hope that he will respond to it.

Mr. Chris Mullin: This is the situation: a fine facility—one of the best of its kind—is lying idle in Sunderland. It has survived the bulldozers only through enormous efforts, led by our colleague Bob Clay, the former Member for Sunderland, North. The company which holds the lease on the facility owns a large fleet of ships which it wants to repair there. There is an agreement with the EC, the details of which have never been fully disclosed to us, which appears to say that no ships can be built at the yard for five years but that the situation is reviewable after five years.
Therefore, for the last five years all who have been associated with this matter have laboured under the illusion that, come the end of the five years, we might persuade the EC—we always thought the EC was the source of the difficulty—to allow this company to start using the Pallion yard to repair its fleet of ships at no cost to public funds. But what happened? When my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) went to the EC before Christmas, the EC still seemed to be under the impression that there was a possibility of opening the yard for ship repairs. We came back and discovered that the problem did not lie with the EC but with the Department of Trade and Industry. It appears that the terms that the DTI has imposed on the Pallion yard are stronger than those demanded by the EC. That is the source of our frustration. As I said in my intervention, it would be most helpful if the Minister could disclose the details of the 1988 agreement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North quoted a letter from Karel van Miert to the Bishop of Durham. It clearly refers to a period of not fewer than five years, which implies that the matter was at least renegotiable and that there was a window of opportunity at the end of those five years which are now coming to an end. However, everything that we hear from the Minister and his Department suggests that it is absolutely impossible and that nothing can be done until 1999 when, as we all know, it will be far too late.
We should like to hear that the Minister is going to help us in our efforts and is going to back Britain, and that the next time it will not be a question of the Member of the European Parliament, Alan Donnelly, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North going cap in hand to Brussels, but that a Minister could also come to try to


persuade the EC to allow us to use the fine facility for the purpose for which it was created, because the work is available. I cannot stress too strongly the fact that the work is there and would involve no public subsidy. We cannot understand why the DTI appears to be more anxious than the EC to close the facility. I want to hear not only the explanation but what the Minister is going to do to resolve the issue.

Mr. Don Dixon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) on securing this Adjournment debate. It is a very important subject, certainly to the people of Sunderland. it also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and support the representations that they have both made to the Minister.
I know a fair bit about the Sunderland shipyards as I have worked in almost every yard on the River Wear. I worked at Bartrams, Pickersgill, Iaings and Thompsons. I have worked on oil tankers, cargo boats, refrigerator ships and the SD14s which were successfully built by Pickersgills. They were well known across the world and did a tremendous amount of good for the shipbuilding industry in this country. I worked on the Timeroo Star which was built at Bartrams and 200 joiners worked alongside me, insulating the holds and chambers between the decks. I do not know how many houses would have to be built to employ 200 joiners, but such employment was available on the River Wear at that time.
Sunderland was always known as the biggest shipbuilding town in the world. Now that it has city status, it has no shipbuilding, which is a tragedy. Sunderland, or the Wear, cannot be separated from the Tyne. It has always been called Tyne and Wear—the county council was called the Tyne and Wear county council and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) did a tremendous job as its deputy leader for a long time until the Government abolished it.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North, I stayed in the shipyard while he left to take a cushy job down the pits.

Mr. Etherington: It cannot have been that cushy a number or my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) might have done the same thing, although there are not many shipwrights down the pits.

Mr. Dixon: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has more faith in the EC than I have. Since I was elected to the House in 1979, every debate on the EC has involved discussion of a maritime policy. We have talked about getting orders for more ships for the shipyards to build. We have talked about a scrap and build policy. Indeed, the European Union has been talking about scrap and build since 1977 and it has not made a decision yet. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North has far more faith in the EU than I do. The Government must take the decision and they must act on behalf of shipbuilding in our areas.
I certainly support the representations made tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and I have the same problem on the River Tyne. There is a shipyard up the river, Swan Hunter, which, as the Minister knows, is just hanging on. It would be a tragedy if that yard

was to go. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would support the retention of shipbuilding on the River Tyne.
When we talk about Sunderland shipyards and the 10-year embargo that the EC imposed, to which my hon. Friends have referred—

Mr. Mullin: It was supposed to be a five-year embargo, but that is the question. It was either a 10-year embargo or a five-year embargo, but we do not know.

Mr. Dixon: That embargo was certainly discussed widely when Sunderland received an amount of money to create enterprise zones and so on in the area. Sixty years ago in 1934, Jarrow was one of the biggest shipbuilding towns in the world. Ships used to come into the old Palmers yard as iron ore and leave as complete ships. It was closed in 1934 by an organisation called Shipbuilding Security Ltd. That was an organisation of shipbuilders, ship owners and bankers who decided that there was too much shipbuilding capacity in the country, so it closed yards and put embargoes on the building of ships. Those embargoes used to be for 40 years, such as in Jarrow. Views on shipbuilding have not changed a great deal in 60 years.
One of the yards where I worked for a considerable time on the Tyne, Hawthorne Leslies, is now a housing estate called Hebburn village. We built some of the finest ships in the world at that yard. That is the tragedy of shipbuilding in our area. I certainly support my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, North and for Sunderland, South and I know that we have the support of those hon. Members who have stayed for the Adjournment debate. There are not many such audiences for an Adjournment debate and it is because of the importance of the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) was involved in the campaign to save the Sunderland shipyards for a considerable time before he became a Member of Parliament.
I hope that the Minister will take on board what my hon. Friends have said and do something about saving Sunderland shipyards because it is vital. The entire Tyne and Wear area depends a great deal on shipbuilding and I hope that our representations will be taken up by the Minister tonight.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I well understand the concerns for Tyne and Wear and for the shipbuilding tradition of the area which have been expressed by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington). I congratulate him on securing the Adjournment debate and his hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) on their comments. The hon. Member for Jarrow has a double reason to comment from his long experience and involvement in the industry and, even if the hon. Member for Sunderland, North opted for the cushy job later, he did serve his apprenticeship with Austin and Pickersgill. All hon. Members are aware of the long and distinguished history of shipbuilding on the Tyne and on the Wear.
It may help if I put the situation into the context of the privatisation of the shipbuilding industry, which was an objective of the incoming 1979 Conservative Government. The vehicle created to achieve privatisation was the British


Shipbuilders Act 1983, which allowed the Secretary of State to direct British shipbuilders to dispose of special assets or subsidiaries. As hon. Members will be aware, the war shipbuilding yards were sold in 1985 and 1986. Of course, that is another story, especially in connection with the present situation at Swan Hunter.
Due to the worldwide depression in shipbuilding, which existed then and, as hon. Members will know, has persisted, the merchant shipbuilding yards were not sold until later. By May 1988, many of the smaller yards and the engineering facilities had been sold or closed. By then, support given by the Government to British Shipbuilders since the inception of BS in 1977 had amounted to almost £2 billion with no foreseeable return to sustained viability. It was therefore decided that subsidies should cease for BS and that the remaining companies be closed or sold.
In June 1988 the remaining yards were Appledore Shipbuilders, Govan Shipbuilders Ltd., Ferguson Shipbuilders and North East Shipbuilders Ltd. Buyers were found for the first three yards and, as the House will know, all three remain in production today. Sadly, however, it was not possible find a buyer for North East Shipbuilders Ltd. NESL was formed in February 1986 through the amalgamation of two British Shipbuilders companies, Sunderland Shipbuilders Ltd., which operated at Pallion, and Austin and Pickersgill Ltd., which has also been mentioned. A third yard, North Sands, was used for fitting out the ships built at the other two yards. In 1977, the yards employed between them some 7,500 people, but when closure was announced in December 1988, employment had fallen to about 2,000.
After the yards were put on the market in 1988, the original deadline for bids was extended from September to October 1988, because of various problems with contracts then current. That series of extensions demonstrated how hard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who was then the Secretary of State—

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Mr. Sainsbury: I am sorry; my right hon. Friend was then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, not Secretary of State. The series of extensions shows how hard he tried to find a buyer and to keep the thing going—with the help of Mr. Bob Clay, then the Member of Parliament for Sunderland, North. But the vital ingredients that were absent were customers and the likelihood of profitable business for the yard.
Further evidence of the efforts that were made is the fact that another extension, to the end of November, was given following rejection of the previous unsatisfactory bids, to allow a further expression of interest by a consortium led by Bob Clay. However, the bids were judged by British Shipbuilders and ourselves not to provide the basis of a viable future for merchant shipbuilding at Sunderland, and in December my right hon. Friend, who was not only the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster but the Minister for Trade and Industry, announced the closure of NESL and the institution of remedial measures.
To facilitate the completion of a ferry contract, it was announced that British Shipbuilders would keep the yard intact until at least the end of June 1989 to allow any other

potential interests to come forward. Four positive proposals emerged over that period, two involving shipbuilding operations and two non-shipbuilding operations. Again, regrettably, the shipbuilding bids were not seen as viable because of the continuing depressed state of the shipbuilding market and the fact that they would not be eligible for intervention fund money.
Furthermore—here we come to the role of the European Commission—the Commission suggested at the time that if shipbuilding were resumed at NESL it would mean the reinvestigation of the whole British Shipbuilders remedial package, which had been agreed and which was beginning to be put in place. It would have been most undesirable if the Commission had disallowed it.
When it became clear that closure was inevitable, the Government negotiated with the Commission and secured an aid package worth some £45 million to assist those who would be affected. The major elements of that package, which had to be approved under Community competition rules, were an enterprise zone, which will last until the year 2000, a radical retraining programme and the establish-ment of Wearside Opportunity, a business-led team specialising in training and development grants for small firms and in the promotion of Sunderland generally.
I realise that some hon. Members may not always agree with everything that the Tyne and Wear development corporation does, but I believe that it has achieved a great deal for the area. At that time, it extended its Wearside activities in redeveloping the riverside, and it will remain in being until 1997. Its most recent development, the Doxford Park site, is nearing completion and will provide a hi-tech business environment for new investment. English Estates, as it then was, provided a substantial number of industrial units at Hylton riverside, on the site of an old colliery.
Labour Members, especially the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, have described what they saw as the confusion surrounding the arrangements that accompanied the closure and the agreement to the substantial aid package. However, when the Commission agreed to the closure of North East Shipbuilders and to the remedial package, it was acting in line with its policy at the time, which was to reduce excess capacity. It perceived that only in that way would the industry be able to return to normal competitive conditions.
After negotiation, we agreed with the Commission to close the site permanently for all shipbuilding activities. The Commission interprets permanent closure in this context as meaning that no shipbuilding, ship conversion or ship repair should take place for five years. It may be that the confusion has arisen from what follows from that. In this connection, I shall pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South. For the next five years—this was provided for in the original agreement with the Commission—no such activity would take place without the consent of the Commission. That lasts until 1999.
From approaches that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, the Member of the European Parliament for the area and others have made to the Commission, hon. Members will know that the Commission is very conscious of continuing over-capacity in the European merchant shipbuilding sector and that the Commission, in conformity with the agreement originally entered into, will not permit any shipbuilding, ship conversion or ship repair to take place at Pallion. That is the unfortunate situation.


The agreement was an absolute ban for five years, followed by a continuing ban unless the Commission agreed to relax the rules.
Labour Members, particularly the hon. Member for Jarrow, will know that it has been very difficult indeed and has taken a great deal of time—much longer than I should have wished—to get out of the Commission a very limited agreement in respect of Swan Hunter. That reflects the problems that the Commission envisages arising if it were to open up one of these agreements. Opposition Members are no doubt aware that the whole shipbuilding industry of the European Community was substantially restructured and that over half the total capacity throughout the Community was eliminated during this period in an attempt to bring capacity more into line with demand.

Mr. Mullin: What representations has the Minister or his Department made to the European Community with regard to the question of another look at this agreement after five years? We get the impression that the Department takes a much harder line than does the EC. That is what concerns us.

Mr. Sainsbury: I assure the hon. Gentleman and all other hon. Members that that is not the position. My officials and I have had a continuing series of discussions with the Commission to see whether, at any time, there would be a likelihood of a change in its attitude. On the basis of my personal discussions with Commissioner Van Miert and of the numerous meetings in which my officials have taken part, I am well aware of the fact that the Commission takes a very strong line on this point because, as the House knows, there continues to be over-capacity in the European shipbuilding industry—indeed, in the world shipbuilding industry. We have all been waiting for some time for the revival of demand. It has continuously been forecast as being about two years away, but, so far as I can see, it remains two years away, although a number of authorities still expect it to come. There is a desperate shortage of orders and there continues to be over-capacity.

Mr. Jim Cousins: Does that mean that the Minister would support an application for the use of these facilities for ship repairing?

That is the practical possibility on offer. It is that proposition, and no other, which the people of Sunderland ask the Minister to support.

Mr. Sainsbury: If I had any indication that there might be a softening of the Commission's attitude, yes, but, from my discussions with Commissioner Van Miert and from the continual contact between my officials and the relevant parts of the Commission, I know that the Commission is very firm in its view. The ban applies not just to shipbuilding, but, as I have explained, to ship conversion and ship repair. That, I am afraid, continues to be the position.
It was unfortunate that Mr. Petersen's remarks of last December gave a misleading impression. I am afraid that the reason is that Mr. Petersen was not fully conversant with the situation.

Mr. Etherington: I should like to put a fairly blunt and straightforward question to the Minister. In view of what he has said, will he write to the Commissioner and ask for a meeting involving himself, the interested Members of Parliament from the area, the company, the Euro Member of Parliament and the Commissioner to see whether some progress might be made?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am always happy to make approaches. I shall do so yet again when I next see the Commissioner. Indeed, I might take up the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I shall also investigate the possibility—there may be questions of commercial confidentiality—of placing a copy of the agreement in the Library of the House. That might help to explain the position. Although it is not up to me to do so, I can only apologise on behalf of the Commission for the fact that it was the cause of confusion.
I wish that we could see an upturn in demand. That would change the attitude and enable—

The motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.